The cricket thread

Heartfeltdawn · November 2018

The reliably odious Simon Heffer opines thus in the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2018/11/29/england-crickets-new-eligibility-rules-will-destroy-link-birth/

"The England and Wales Cricket Board’s apparent determination to undermine the English name has taken a further step forward by the decision to allow overseas-born players the right to qualify for England by taking out British citizenship and having just three years’ residence in the United Kingdom.

In each of those years 210 days’ residence is required, thus allowing the qualifying player to travel abroad. In the press release announcing the new regulations the ECB noted the ICC regulations, which are three years, and will argue that they were simply bringing England and Wales into line.

The likely first beneficiary Jofra Archer, the Sussex fast bowler, has a British father but was born in Barbados and did not come to England until after his 18th birthday. Archer played for the West Indies U-19s, but has not represented another country for four years.

Although Archer has a first-class bowling average of 23.44, he has especially distinguished himself in white-ball cricket, the main obsession of England’s administrators, to whom he is likely to become exceptionally useful.

Before this wholesale change in regulations there was talk of the ECB using a discretionary clause in its own rules to let Archer play; it is hard to judge which would have been more cynical. It looks as though the change has been made with the sole object not of creating “fairness”, but of allowing England to add to its World Cup squad next year a player who otherwise would have been unable to take part. Any idea that this would have consequences other than obliging England and Archer must be dismissed immediately.

For a start, it will put England-qualified quick bowlers who have laboured for their counties in the hope of achieving international recognition at an immediate disadvantage. At a stroke, because of Archer’s unquestioned talent, they go one step back in the queue. With both James Anderson and Stuart Broad much nearer the ends of their careers than their beginnings, this is an important consideration.

But it also moves one step closer to destroying the link between birth and international representation. When South Africa was disqualified from Test cricket during the apartheid era a number of non-English born players – notably Allan Lamb and the Smith brothers – went through processes to play for England instead. And there have always been Englishmen born abroad – whether Ted Dexter (Milan) or Phil Edmonds (Zambia) who, thanks to being born in countries that did not play international cricket and having a British passport could qualify easily for England.

And in the distant days of the Empire, when all its citizens were subjects of the Queen Empress and India was yet to have a Test team of its own, Prince Ranjitsinhji turned out gracefully for England, making his debut in 1896 in an early and commendable example of the English cricket authorities – in those days the MCC, which picked the team – overcoming notions of racism. It was pointed out at the time that, as well as having no other national side for which to play, Ranji had learned how to play cricket to a high standard in England, first at Cambridge and then for Sussex.

Ranji, though, was the exception and not the rule. With the rule now relaxed so a player can take a three-year sabbatical from international cricket (while earning a fortune in domestic T20 competitions) before being enlisted in another national side, it will not just be the link with birthright that will be compromised.

In time some sort of transfer market will build up; and as Test cricket plunges in popularity in some countries around the world, notably West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand, it will be tempting for talented cricketers to wish to play the game in all its formats to a high level to shift to those countries where, at the moment, it is still flourishing. And England, with this substantial relaxation in its existing rules, will become a magnet for such players.

The change will, though, have its greatest impact on English-born county players, for whom there is seldom somewhere else realistic to go. Most of them do not get asked to play in an overseas T20 franchise where they can attract attention; and with a pitiful 14 first-class matches a year have much less chance to shine at that level than their predecessors. Those in the second division often verge on the invisible. With English cricket’s doors now open, effectively, to all comers, the incentives for native-born players just shrivelled enormously."

cj73 · November 2018

Or the old gaelic festival

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samhain

scrumhalf · November 2018

Won't be long now before the eligibility criteria are changed to:

1) Is he any good?

2) Has he eaten fish and chips.

crunchman · November 2018

scrumhalf said:

Won't be long now before the eligibility criteria are changed to:
1) Is he any good?
2) Has he eaten fish and chips.

The old LOL or Wis dilemna

Heartfeltdawn · November 2018

This is why Heffer's article is so dreadful. It makes out that it's a simple process and it is not. As dissected:

"Although Archer has a first-class bowling average of 23.44, he has especially distinguished himself in white-ball cricket, the main obsession of England’s administrators, to whom he is likely to become exceptionally useful."

Technically Archer's worst format with the ball is List A cricket aka a form of white-ball cricket so Heffer is purposefully inaccurate in order to construct a nice sentence where he can have a dig at the ECB.

"It looks as though the change has been made with the sole object not of creating “fairness”, but of allowing England to add to its World Cup squad next year a player who otherwise would have been unable to take part. Any idea that this would have consequences other than obliging England and Archer must be dismissed immediately."

If other countries can pick players under this sort of immigration timeframe and we can't, then that offers a potential advantage to the opposition that we do not have. Closing it up makes sense. It's really no worse than the Australians a few years ago when Fawad Ahmed got fast tracked.

"For a start, it will put England-qualified quick bowlers who have laboured for their counties in the hope of achieving international recognition at an immediate disadvantage. At a stroke, because of Archer’s unquestioned talent, they go one step back in the queue. With both James Anderson and Stuart Broad much nearer the ends of their careers than their beginnings, this is an important consideration."

With the injury rate within our bowlers, that one step back in the queue is not exactly a chasm. But why bowlers, Simon? Why does Keaton Jennings not represent a hurdle to our home-grown boys?

"But it also moves one step closer to destroying the link between birth and international representation. When South Africa was disqualified from Test cricket during the apartheid era a number of non-English born players – notably Allan Lamb and the Smith brothers – went through processes to play for England instead. And there have always been Englishmen born abroad – whether Ted Dexter (Milan) or Phil Edmonds (Zambia) who, thanks to being born in countries that did not play international cricket and having a British passport could qualify easily for England."

Names as large as Lord Harris and Pelham Warner were born in Trinidad for goodness sake. We live in a modern era where people and families move around far more than yesteryear. The link between birth and international representation is outdated. It belongs to an era of going on tour by fucking steam ship and playing deck quoits.

"Ranji, though, was the exception and not the rule. With the rule now relaxed so a player can take a three-year sabbatical from international cricket (while earning a fortune in domestic T20 competitions) before being enlisted in another national side, it will not just be the link with birthright that will be compromised."

This is horseshit. The qualification for England will be:

"From 1 January 2019, to play for England, players will need to:

Have British citizenship and
Either have been born in England/Wales, or have three years' residence (a total of 210 days/year April-March) and
Not have played as a local player in professional international or domestic cricket in a full member country within the past three years."

British citizenship is the key here. To get citizenship within three years is impossible. An unmarried person can only get citizenship after living here for five years, a person married to a British citizen can apply after living here for three years.

https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-spouse/how-to-apply

If someone comes over on a Tier 2 sportsperson's visa, they can remain here for three years

https://www.gov.uk/tier-2-sportsperson-worker-visa

This is important as it leads onto this element from Heffer:

"In time some sort of transfer market will build up; and as Test cricket plunges in popularity in some countries around the world, notably West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand, it will be tempting for talented cricketers to wish to play the game in all its formats to a high level to shift to those countries where, at the moment, it is still flourishing. And England, with this substantial relaxation in its existing rules, will become a magnet for such players."

A transfer system is unlikely to build up. A young player from South Africa who cuts all ties and contracts back home would be a free agent. Who would you pay a transfer fee to in this instance? County cricket's wages would be plenty of financial incentive and the county club would act as the sponsor I presume (unless the ECB acts as the sponsor) when it comes to any Tier 2 application process.

The change will, though, have its greatest impact on English-born county players, for whom there is seldom somewhere else realistic to go. Most of them do not get asked to play in an overseas T20 franchise where they can attract attention; and with a pitiful 14 first-class matches a year have much less chance to shine at that level than their predecessors. Those in the second division often verge on the invisible. With English cricket’s doors now open, effectively, to all comers, the incentives for native-born players just shrivelled enormously."

Heffer's clearly missed news of the 100. Aren't overseas franchise players here banned from playing in the county one day matches come 2020? Pretty sure this was announced... the notion I suspect is that the county one day games will act as a shop window for the franchises to then go for those unknowns who might then prove to be box office gold. You've seen it a number of times in the IPL, how someone showing good stuff in domestic slap and giggle cricket then gets propelled into the big leagues. One might also point to David Warner as being a prime example in Australia.

scrumhalf · January 2019

New year, new series, same old top order batting. 44-3.

scrumhalf · January 2019

48-6. The nostalgia is overwhelming.

scrumhalf · January 2019

77 all out in little more than a session. More than 200 behind. That's the first test gone, surely.

sixstringsupplies · January 2019

Pretty shambolic that. Beautiful fast bowling though.

crunchman · January 2019

Not good. Mitchell Starc must be licking his lips.

guitars4you · January 2019

Can't work out why we have 3 wicket keepers - Each can do a decent job with the bat, when they are there as an all-rounder to bat and keep - Not so sure they can do a dedicated role as a batsman - IMO it upsets the balance of the side

Broad should still be front line attack with Jimmy - Not to many years left in them both - With Stokes and Curran as 3 + 4th seamers

2 spinners is a luxury these days, but if you can't get to day 4 or 5 then the benefit Rashid brings to the table is minimal

We are struggling to find 1 + 2 with the bat - Root at 4 is okay, but the rest of the batting line up is effectively a blend of all-rounders - On the day each is fine, but that is to hit n miss

Not a lot of time to get this right before the summer

crunchman · January 2019

guitars4you said:

Can't work out why we have 3 wicket keepers - Each can do a decent job with the bat, when they are there as an all-rounder to bat and keep - Not so sure they can do a dedicated role as a batsman - IMO it upsets the balance of the side

Foakes needs to play because he is the best keeper, and he can bat as well.

If we had some competent top order batsmen you would leave out one of Buttler and Bairstow, but they are probably better batsmen than most of the specialist batsmen. Bairstow isn't really suited to 3, but I'm not convinced there is anyone around who will do a better job.

The big problem with the balance of the team in this match is that we misread the pitch and went in with two spinners. If we had Broad in for Rashid then it would look a lot better balanced.

guitars4you · January 2019

crunchman said:

guitars4you said:

Can't work out why we have 3 wicket keepers - Each can do a decent job with the bat, when they are there as an all-rounder to bat and keep - Not so sure they can do a dedicated role as a batsman - IMO it upsets the balance of the side

If we had some competent top order batsmen you would leave out one of Buttler and Bairstow, but they are probably better batsmen than most of the specialist batsmen. Bairstow isn't really suited to 3, but I'm not convinced there is anyone around who will do a better job.

agree with that and herein lies the problem

They've tried Stokes at 3 hoping he'd be the next J Kallis - Yet the balance of the side normally has the all rounder at 6 - Yet Foakes can bat there, yet they currently play Butler - And I'm sure Curran could bet further up than 8, when he often comes in desperately trying to put some credibility on the score board, but runs out of partners

Not sure what the answer is - Certainly some bodge up, with what we have

crunchman · January 2019

guitars4you said:

Not sure what the answer is - Certainly some bodge up, with what we have

I know what the answer isn't - to devalue the first class County Championship, and move it to the margins of the season, while all the players concentrate on pyjama cricket.

Oops!

guitars4you · January 2019

wasn't as though they were facing Holding, Marshall and Garner either - the pitch did not look like it was loaded with pot holes either - 77 was a total disgrace - But it comes on top of 50 odd against NZ less than 12 months ago

Heartfeltdawn · January 2019

crunchman said:

Not good. Mitchell Starc must be licking his lips.

Since the start of the SA series last year and incorporating Sandpapergate and including the current Test against Sri Lanka, Starc has taken 31 wickets at 34.83 in 10 Tests. Rub off the South Africa Tests and it's a lousy 19 wickets in 7 Tests at 35.10. He was comfortably poor with the new ball against India.

As for England... pisspoor selection. Jack Leach shouldn't have been dropped after being top wicket taker in Sri Lanka. You wouldn't dump a highest run scorer in that way so don't do it to bowlers. Rashid thus far has been astoundingly anonymous. A few folk claiming he's a match winner: when?

Broad's non-selection was shite before play began. Picking a little skiddy left-armer in Curran for Barbados was predictably bad (I say that having played on that track years ago. Spinners and big tall deck hitters were fine: the wee English touch the surface seamers were hammered mercilessly).

Then the batting. It's as you'd expect with the lack of decent practice time and a lottery for the top order.

axisus · January 2019

Well that was a shocker. I thought that those days were well behind us. Embarrassing.

scrumhalf · January 2019

We're reaping the "benefits" of over-exposure to one-day cricket. We no longer produce batsmen capable of spending half a day at the crease as a matter of course.

We've got some admirable biff-bang merchants, but how many top-class test batsmen do we have who can produce the goods more often than not?

Joe Root.

scrumhalf · January 2019

<sobs>

earwighoney · January 2019

Something which I think is a huge issue in test cricket which rarely gets as much emphasis placed upon it as much I believe it should be is winning the toss.

Joe Root managed to win every toss for the India and Sri Lanka series and aside from one pitch, there was never much doubt to what the team would do if they won the toss. IMO, test pitches are largely favouring whoever wins the toss in the conditions are optimal for one particular innings be it with the ball or bat (generally the team that bats first).

I watched a fair amount of the Australia India series and whichever team won the toss, won the test match.

I'm sure @Heartfeltdawn has some insights towards how important winning the toss is in contemporary test cricket.

shrinkwrap · January 2019

Yeah, but nice to see a resurgent Windies - Cricket needs them.

scrumhalf · January 2019

What a shower of shit.

Our spinners do sod-all, their part-time spinner rips through our batters.

Heartfeltdawn · January 2019

earwighoney said:

Something which I think is a huge issue in test cricket which rarely gets as much emphasis placed upon it as much I believe it should be is winning the toss.

Joe Root managed to win every toss for the India and Sri Lanka series and aside from one pitch, there was never much doubt to what the team would do if they won the toss. IMO, test pitches are largely favouring whoever wins the toss in the conditions are optimal for one particular innings be it with the ball or bat (generally the team that bats first).

I watched a fair amount of the Australia India series and whichever team won the toss, won the test match.

I'm sure @Heartfeltdawn has some insights towards how important winning the toss is in contemporary test cricket.

Ric Finlay certainly does. I'm more in the line of thinking that the psychological effect of the toss can be just as important as getting first dibs on the pitch.

https://twitter.com/RicFinlay/status/1021389599589818368

Personally I don't think the pitches have been the primary issue when it comes to toss winning and match winning. Batting is poorer full stop: even more so when going overseas. Finlay thows up a remarkable stat about Australia's summer this year which has been lacking in Aussie tons.

https://twitter.com/RicFinlay/status/1088750951022743552

For someone who grew up with the Australia dominance starting from 1989, it's almost beyond comprehension that the batsmen are that poor now.

I can't think anyone could claim that the Barbados Test was decided by the toss. When a side scores 600 in the third innings after rattling someone out for 77, there's clearly something else at work. That to me is a lack of match practice. It's incredible in a sport full of monitoring and science and training that nobody stands up and says "Lack of warm-up games fuck the Test game".

scrumhalf · January 2019

Heartfeltdawn said:

For someone who grew up with the Australia dominance starting from 1989, it's almost beyond comprehension that the batsmen are that poor now.

I don't think so. The longer form of the game isn't fashionable enough. The mentality to sit in there and sell your wicket dearly is almost alien in England. I'm one of many who bemoan the way the balance between test/county championship and one-day cricket has skewed in recent years.

Heartfeltdawn · January 2019

scrumhalf said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

For someone who grew up with the Australia dominance starting from 1989, it's almost beyond comprehension that the batsmen are that poor now.

I don't think so. The longer form of the game isn't fashionable enough. The mentality to sit in there and sell your wicket dearly is almost alien in England. I'm one of many who bemoan the way the balance between test/county championship and one-day cricket has skewed in recent years.

Indeed within England but seeing the slump in Australia is even more magnified. In my lifetime we've never had a situation where England could put out an A side that would beat most international sides. Australia did. Their list of Sheffield Shield run scorers who didn't play for Australia in that era is terrifying.

But then again we live in an age now where Roston Chase is made to look like he's bowling on a minefield.

Heartfeltdawn · January 2019

Oh, and the day was improved by virtue of being successful in the Lords ballot. Two tickets for the Mound Stand on day 1 in August works for me.

scrumhalf · January 2019

Heartfeltdawn said:

Oh, and the day was improved by virtue of being successful in the Lords ballot. Two tickets for the Mound Stand on day 1 in August works for me.

I just checked and it's the first day of the test, so you're okay. If you had tickets for the back end I wouldn't be that certain the match wouldn't be over!

crunchman · January 2019

scrumhalf said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Oh, and the day was improved by virtue of being successful in the Lords ballot. Two tickets for the Mound Stand on day 1 in August works for me.

I just checked and it's the first day of the test, so you're okay. If you had tickets for the back end I wouldn't be that certain the match wouldn't be over!

They will probably prepare a batting paradise to make sure it goes the distance. Anderson will have to bowl 100 overs and be wrecked for the rest of the series.

earwighoney · January 2019

Heartfeltdawn said:

Ric Finlay certainly does. I'm more in the line of thinking that the psychological effect of the toss can be just as important as getting first dibs on the pitch.

https://twitter.com/RicFinlay/status/1021389599589818368

Personally I don't think the pitches have been the primary issue when it comes to toss winning and match winning. Batting is poorer full stop: even more so when going overseas. Finlay thows up a remarkable stat about Australia's summer this year which has been lacking in Aussie tons.

https://twitter.com/RicFinlay/status/1088750951022743552

For someone who grew up with the Australia dominance starting from 1989, it's almost beyond comprehension that the batsmen are that poor now.

I can't think anyone could claim that the Barbados Test was decided by the toss. When a side scores 600 in the third innings after rattling someone out for 77, there's clearly something else at work. That to me is a lack of match practice. It's incredible in a sport full of monitoring and science and training that nobody stands up and says "Lack of warm-up games fuck the Test game".

The lack of warm up games for tours are sadly part of the modern game. The cricket schedule is far too bloated to actually allow teams adequate preparation.

My suggestion of winning the toss being an important part of influencing the game's outcome wasn't to exempt England's performance but it was to suggest it was a factor. IMO, England have been in a somewhat unusual position of having won 8 consecutive tosses and for the majority of the time rarely being in a position where they were chasing the game.

Yep, I heard the stat about Australian batting when I was watching the Australia v India series. Did you watch any of that series? Harris looked pretty decent at the crease but just couldn't convert his starts, the rest of the team's batting seemed very fragile at best. A few comments here and there have suggested the BBL has not had the best impact for domestic red ball /Shield cricket. It seems the standard of cricket in Indian railways is better than the standard of Australian domestic cricket... I imagine once Smith etc return they'll recover with the bat.

Back to England, IMO the selection of the XI seemed a bit odd. Selection of Rashid over Leach for the second spinner to begin with, but I'm not sure whether a second spinner was needed in the first place. As for batting they seem to not really truly acknowledge how important the no.3 position for batting is. Maybe a cliche but I was always under the mindset that it was pivotal to have a player with a technique with an adequate amount of defensive work and enough attacking intent to keep things ticking over. Looking at the English batting order, I'm unconvinced by Bairstow at 3 and for a lot of of the batsmen the positions in the order seems more about trying to get in as many batsmen as possible opposed to have the right batsmen in the right order, which isn't to say there aren't benefits to this approach clearly it does work from time to time as it does allow having a lot of batsmen in the XI.

sixstringsupplies · February 2019

I'm so wound up with this England team. I work hard all week (as many do) and then look forward to a beer and watching cricket, my main passion in life, Utter garbage. They deserve to lose this series 3-0.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

The cricket thread

Comments