The International Cricket Thread

[PaulWinch again]

Back to cricket and it seems that the vultures are circling over Silverwood already.

Rightly so, this is as bad as we've seen in an ashes tour.

And that’s not in isolation either. We’ve been on a decline in general for a while - not all Silverwood’s fault clearly, but nothing he’s done has made a positive improvement. It’s been a diabolical year for English Test cricket. The fact you have player scoring the third most runs ever in a calendar year and we still lost 9 Tests shows how bad it’s been.

Silverwood needs to go, but they also need to split the coach and selectors roles again - amalgamating them was another terrible decision.

[tomd2103]

Back to cricket and it seems that the vultures are circling over Silverwood already.

Rightly so, this is as bad as we've seen in an ashes tour.

And that’s not in isolation either. We’ve been on a decline in general for a while - not all Silverwood’s fault clearly, but nothing he’s done has made a positive improvement. It’s been a diabolical year for English Test cricket. The fact you have player scoring the third most runs ever in a calendar year and we still lost 9 Tests shows how bad it’s been.

Silverwood needs to go, but they also need to split the coach and selectors roles again - amalgamating them was another terrible decision.

Heard parts of an interview with Gary Kirsten that was on Talksport earlier today.  Said he would be interested in the role, but only the test side of things and not the ODIs.  We've been down that route before and it wasn't entirely successful, but do wonder if that is the way to now go with there being such a busy schedule.

[dave shelley]

I discovered recently that a great-great-grandfather died in a hurling incident (I don't say 'accident' as it seems to me that getting whacked in the neck seems to some extent to be the purpose of the sport).

That most definitely would've been fouling the man.

It's a physical game but the rules do not allow striking an opponent with the hurley. All proper coaching emphasises restrained use of the hurley and seriously frowns upon any play that may result in either you accidentally hitting an opponent, or putting yourself in a position where you could accidentally be hit.

So while it can/does happen, being struck in the neck would be no more a part of hurling than Tyson biting Holyfield's ear was a part of boxing.

Sorry for sounding all serious, I just think hurling's reputation as being brutal is unfair, and it's certainly nowhere near as dangerous as rugby, say.

According to my aforementioned family member, the most violent part was always the post match fight between the teams. He reckoned it didn't matter who the teams were, there was always a massive scrap. And apparently Steve Staunton was absolutely hard as nails.

However bad the stuff on the pitch may be, when the spectators get involved it's a joy to behold!

[paul_e]

I think a clean break between the test and ODI/T20 teams is the right thing now. However it needs to be backroom teams that can still work together so they don't end up fighting over how they develop players who are selected across the formats.

[Rory]

I discovered recently that a great-great-grandfather died in a hurling incident (I don't say 'accident' as it seems to me that getting whacked in the neck seems to some extent to be the purpose of the sport).

That most definitely would've been fouling the man.

It's a physical game but the rules do not allow striking an opponent with the hurley. All proper coaching emphasises restrained use of the hurley and seriously frowns upon any play that may result in either you accidentally hitting an opponent, or putting yourself in a position where you could accidentally be hit.

So while it can/does happen, being struck in the neck would be no more a part of hurling than Tyson biting Holyfield's ear was a part of boxing.

Sorry for sounding all serious, I just think hurling's reputation as being brutal is unfair, and it's certainly nowhere near as dangerous as rugby, say.

According to my aforementioned family member, the most violent part was always the post match fight between the teams. He reckoned it didn't matter who the teams were, there was always a massive scrap. And apparently Steve Staunton was absolutely hard as nails.

Sounds about right. I remember the All Ireland final 10 or 12 years ago, the teams walked out, camera cut to the stands for maybe five seconds, then there was a roar and the commentator said, "yep, here we go". The camera cut back to show a 10-man brawl between the sides. This was before the anthem and everything.

[Steve67]

Gary Kirsten instead of Silverwood is a no brainer.  Splitting the one day from the test side isn't the worst thing either.

[olaftab]

Gary Kirsten instead of Silverwood is a no brainer.  Splitting the one day from the test side isn't the worst thing either.

IMO it's a rubbish idea. If you look at 3 leading Test  nations New zealand, India and Australia there is not a lot of difference between their Test teams and short games. Develop the national cricket purely for Test matches and then also play best players in the short game. That's a no brainer as far as I am concerned.

[PaulWinch again]

I think it depend really. I think for England it might work because Morgan essentially runs the ODI stuff, it doesn’t really need a head coach.

[tomd2103]

Also seem to be calls for a longer format competition where the best talent is condensed into a smaller number of teams.  Have to say that I have felt this has been needed for some time, but that it should not replace County cricket. 

Would look to condense the 18 counties into 6 regional sides (ie. Warks, Worcs and Northants would make up the Central region) and split the five fixtures so they fall before the two test series we play over the summer.  Get the England players playing, get the best of the County players playing and maybe even allow one side a top overseas player each to bring the level up further. 

As I said, the County Championship must remain for me, but I think if the summer is structured properly, there would be enough room to fit five weeks in. 

[Gareth]

As a Worcs fan I am obviously resistant to any further franchise cricket because it is clear what the plan is.  ECB don’t want the likes of Worcs / Northants / Leicester sharing their income

I think 3 divisions might be a good option in county championship so that the best players / teams are against each other more often.

Three formats is the way forward & supports international formats - 4 day / 50 over / t20 (play more regularly, no reason that they can’t play 3/4 t20’s a week & condense comp)….stick that Hundred bull into the bin

[tomd2103]

As a Worcs fan I am obviously resistant to any further franchise cricket because it is clear what the plan is.  ECB don’t want the likes of Worcs / Northants / Leicester sharing their income

I think 3 divisions might be a good option in county championship so that the best players / teams are against each other more often.

Three formats is the way forward & supports international formats - 4 day / 50 over / t20 (play more regularly, no reason that they can’t play 3/4 t20’s a week & condense comp)….stick that Hundred bull into the bin

Agree Gareth and as I say, I wouldn’t want the County Championship to be impacted in any way.  I do think though that if the season was structured better, there would be room for a series of higher level 4 day games.

People involved in County cricket might tell me different, but I still can’t see why the season can’t be based on weekly County Championship matches held Monday to Thursday and then play the limited overs stuff Friday nights/ Saturdays / Sunday afternoons. 

No chance The Hundred is going to be dropped any time soon, but you can already see the scheduling problems it is going to cause.  As I say, no chance of the ECB knocking it on the head and I would definitely keep it for the Women’s game, but I would happily see it gone.

[Rory]

I still don't see anything The Hundred has over the Blast that couldn't be remedied with marketing. Is anybody who isn't already interested in cricket going to show up for The Hundred? And if they do, is a different number of balls per over going to make it uniquely attractive or help them get into the other formats?

For cricket fans, it's messing with the format in an unnecessary way, with less cricket to watch.

For non-cricket fans, whether it's 100 or 120 balls, it's a chance to get drunk in the open air on a summer evening with blokes smashing a ball about the place.

I can only think it's the product of a committee of PR morons who think cricket is too complicated because they can't process more than one number at a time, so have taken a punt on decimalising it.

No different to introducing a new trophy in football called 'the hour' whereby each half is 30 minutes, the goals are widened and for ten minutes of each half there is a limit on the number of defenders you can play.

[Gareth]

PR morons & ECB imbeciles….

[Rory]

Sorry, yes, mustn't forget those guys.

[Meanwood Villa]

"The Hour" sounds intriguing. Great idea Rory, any additional chances to win honours should be embraced.