Not giving Lawrence a game in Stokes' absence would be tantamount to abuse tbh
Massively unfair on Lawrence I agree, but he'll be incredibly rusty, not having played a game for weeks.
Indeed while it's a completely different format, the Big Bash players are at least match fit, and have some confidence. It's never happen, but if Alex Hales was recalled to play at Hobart (80no today, 63 2 days ago) I'm sure he'd do better than Lawrence or Pope in the middle order.
Hales will never be anywhere near an England team ever again. The guy’s been exposed as a wrongun in the recent racism crisis in England.
Not giving Lawrence a game in Stokes' absence would be tantamount to abuse tbh
Massively unfair on Lawrence I agree, but he'll be incredibly rusty, not having played a game for weeks.
Indeed while it's a completely different format, the Big Bash players are at least match fit, and have some confidence. It's never happen, but if Alex Hales was recalled to play at Hobart (80no today, 63 2 days ago) I'm sure he'd do better than Lawrence or Pope in the middle order.
Hales will never be anywhere near an England team ever again. The guy’s been exposed as a wrongun in the recent racism crisis in England.
I know he will never be recalled, but was using him as an example of someone who's playing and scoring runs in Australia, when the reserve members of the touring party are just carrying the drinks
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
You don't believe that Chizz posts to wind people up? About cricket especially?
I know Leuth - trouble is he does it so much and says so many ridiculous things that it's difficult to even believe what he says even when he has something sensible to say on another thread.
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
I suspect that if Foakes was still in Oz with the lions he would have been called up instead of Billings, even the other keeper Bracey who was in good form for the Lions .. with the series lost and Billings available it makes sense to bring him in rather than flying in a replacement from England .. NOT that I am doubting Billings' ability, I am in fact a fan and it would be a tough call choosing from the three I have mentioned, all very decent keeper/batsmen
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
I suspect that if Foakes was still in Oz with the lions he would have been called up instead of Billings, even the other keeper Bracey who was in good form for the Lions .. with the series lost and Billings available it makes sense to bring him in rather than flying in a replacement from England .. NOT that I am doubting Billings' ability, I am in fact a fan and it would be a tough call choosing from the three I have mentioned, all very decent keeper/batsmen
With Covid rules you wouldn't be able to fly someone in anyway, as the quarantine time would take too long
Billings just happens to be "lucky" to be in the country, and a "short" drive away. It's lucky he hadn't been in Perth, as that would have been a horrendous journey
Foakes should be used by England, henceforth, as an English version of Darren Sammy. I'll explain...
Sammy was drafted into the all-rounder's role in the West Indies team with the objective to "stop the team getting any worse". He's not the best all-rounder in the world and would probably never have claimed to be. But he had enough skill, nous and experience to plug obvious gaps in the team. And he was a good enough bowler and a decent batsman to hold his place in - and improve - the team.
Foakes can do this. He's an exceptional 'keeper and a better batsman than the recent occupants of the 7-8-9 batting positions. On that basis, his inclusion - for example, on the Richards-Botham tour in March - will slow or even halt England's decline. A confident, competant wicket-keeper, plying his trade on pitches that are traditionally easier to keep on than many, and with no need to justify a run of scores befitting a top order batsman.
To be clear, he has never been my choice as England's wicket-keeper-batsman. I don't see him being able to destroy attacks in the way in which I hoped Buttler, Bairstow or even Billings could. Had any of them done so, the debate would have been closed.
But now, I think it's time for Foakes to be given the first-choice 'keeper role for a whole series and the promise that, if he's successful, he keeps the role for June's series against New Zealand.
It would be an "experiment" with very little downside. England would be choosing the best wicket-keeper and could then start to address the problems with many of the other ten positions. (For my money, only three other berths are secure: Crawley (as opener), Malan and Root) - but that's another debate.
However... Sammy's problem is also likely to be Foakes's. By the of his run in the Test team, he was not performing well enough to hold down a position as either a batsman or bowler, preventing the selectors from being able to pick a specialist in one of those two roles. In short, the player who had stopped the West Indies getting any worse had become the reason they couldn't get any better.
That's the risk with Foakes. He's an excellent wicket-keeper. Arguably better than any other Test 'keeper in the world. But he'll never destroy teams in the way that, for example, Gilchrist used to. And that's the benchmark Tests teams should aim for.
I think, for the next two series - possibly longer - Foakes's inclusion would be a risk, but it's one that I hope the selectors (whoever they turn out to be) are willing to take.
Yeah, your wicketkeeper needs to be able to hit sixes and play ramp shots in Test cricket. Part of the job. BJ Watling - total and utter failure of a Test cricketer. Shut up Chizz
Yeah, your wicketkeeper needs to be able to hit sixes and play ramp shots in Test cricket. Part of the job. BJ Watling - total and utter failure of a Test cricketer. Shut up Chizz
Yes, "shut up" would very much be the right response if someone ever suggested BJ Watling was the benchmark wicket-keepers should emulate. Fortunately...
New Zealand could have just given McCullum the gloves the whole time, but they chose to let him concentrate on his destructive batting (which would suit Bairstow as well) and they picked a bloke who was a top keeper and a really reliable, gritty batsman. Not the only good example of this either - remember Mark Boucher? What SA would give for him right now!
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
Probably because of your "views' on the Hundred and the way you "discuss" them. The Hundred continuing is going to add to the test team issues
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
Probably because of your "views' on the Hundred and the way you "discuss" them. The Hundred continuing is going to add to the test team issues
Because I can see the financial benefit of The Hundred, that must mean I've "stated" I don't enjoy Test cricket? That really is bizarre. But, thank you for explaining it.
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
Probably because of your "views' on the Hundred and the way you "discuss" them. The Hundred continuing is going to add to the test team issues
Because I can see the financial benefit of The Hundred, that must mean I've "stated" I don't enjoy Test cricket? That really is bizarre. But, thank you for explaining it.
(It's wrong, and I haven't, for the record).
The thing is if you support the Hundred in its present format meaning that red ball cricket suffers then by definition you are against the Test team .
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
Probably because of your "views' on the Hundred and the way you "discuss" them. The Hundred continuing is going to add to the test team issues
Because I can see the financial benefit of The Hundred, that must mean I've "stated" I don't enjoy Test cricket? That really is bizarre. But, thank you for explaining it.
(It's wrong, and I haven't, for the record).
Your analysis and logic is still way off - where did I say you don't enjoy test cricket?
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
Probably because of your "views' on the Hundred and the way you "discuss" them. The Hundred continuing is going to add to the test team issues
Because I can see the financial benefit of The Hundred, that must mean I've "stated" I don't enjoy Test cricket? That really is bizarre. But, thank you for explaining it.
(It's wrong, and I haven't, for the record).
Your analysis and logic is still way off - where did I say you don't enjoy test cricket?
The nonsense I highlighted says 'you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket'.
I said I don't know where you (meaning the person who posted the nonsense) get this nonsense from.
And you replied 'Probably because of your "views' on the Hundred and the way you "discuss" them'.
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
Probably because of your "views' on the Hundred and the way you "discuss" them. The Hundred continuing is going to add to the test team issues
Because I can see the financial benefit of The Hundred, that must mean I've "stated" I don't enjoy Test cricket? That really is bizarre. But, thank you for explaining it.
(It's wrong, and I haven't, for the record).
The thing is if you support the Hundred in its present format meaning that red ball cricket suffers then by definition you are against the Test team .
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
I've found exactly what you said{
I don't have much interest at all in county cricket. For those that do - great! I like other formats. And my preference is for the highest-standard of cricket, which is tests, obviously. But if some people want to continue to sit and watch their teams play long-format, low-standard (in the main) county cricket, then all power to them.
So it is true that you do enjoy Test cricket. But I was correct when I said that "by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC". And if you think that we can produce a decent Test side by selecting a side that just plays white ball cricket you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.
The Hundred is just T20 dressed up with nowhere to go. No history. No links to Counties but a vehicle invented by the ECB to make them and their Board wealthier. So, as I've suggested previously:
(1) Get rid of The Hundred
(2) Reduce Central Contracts to a minimal amount and pay players on a per squad and appearance basis thus encouraging them to play more CC games to prove themselves
(3) Have three Divisions of six in the CC with home and away games played (10 in total) in the months of May/June/July/August with dates to avoid clashing with the Tests if possible. ECB to subsidise entrance to CC games to the extent that it becomes £10 for adults and free for children
(2) Re-vamp The Blast and get the same amount of games, if not more, on terrestrial TV as were shown of The Hundred ensuring that all Counties get an opportunity to be shown at least once. Two Divisions of nine, home and away, with QF as well as the Finals day for the SF & F (5) Royal London - two Divisions of nine with QF, SF & F
By my reckoning Counties will play, weather permitting and not including pre-season friendlies, a minimum of 36 and up to 42 matches. Plenty of different forms of cricket to cater to all tastes and an increase in quality too
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
I've found exactly what you said{
I don't have much interest at all in county cricket. For those that do - great! I like other formats. And my preference is for the highest-standard of cricket, which is tests, obviously. But if some people want to continue to sit and watch their teams play long-format, low-standard (in the main) county cricket, then all power to them.
So it is true that you do enjoy Test cricket. But I was correct when I said that "by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC". And if you think that we can produce a decent Test side by selecting a side that just plays white ball cricket you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.
The Hundred is just T20 dressed up with nowhere to go. No history. No links to Counties but a vehicle invented by the ECB to make them and their Board wealthier. So, as I've suggested previously:
(1) Get rid of The Hundred
(2) Reduce Central Contracts to a minimal amount and pay players on a per squad and appearance basis thus encouraging them to play more CC games to prove themselves
(3) Have three Divisions of six in the CC with home and away games played (10 in total) in the months of May/June/July/August with dates to avoid clashing with the Tests if possible. ECB to subsidise entrance to CC games to the extent that it becomes £10 for adults and free for children
(2) Re-vamp The Blast and get the same amount of games, if not more, on terrestrial TV as were shown of The Hundred ensuring that all Counties get an opportunity to be shown at least once. Two Divisions of nine, home and away, with QF as well as the Finals day for the SF & F
(5) Royal London - two Divisions of nine with QF, SF & F
By my reckoning Counties will play, weather permitting and not including pre-season friendlies, a minimum of 36 and up to 42 matches. Plenty of different forms of cricket to cater to all tastes and an increase in quality too
That still doesn’t help with the poor standard of cricket in the Counties. How does playing against Kent and it’s attack prepare a test batsman ? And we are due to be in Div 1.
The only way to improve the standard is to ditch the number of counties and consolidate into eight areas.
That way the best batsmen will consistently play against the best bowlers. And not just one per team.
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
I've found exactly what you said{
I don't have much interest at all in county cricket. For those that do - great! I like other formats. And my preference is for the highest-standard of cricket, which is tests, obviously. But if some people want to continue to sit and watch their teams play long-format, low-standard (in the main) county cricket, then all power to them.
So it is true that you do enjoy Test cricket. But I was correct when I said that "by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC". And if you think that we can produce a decent Test side by selecting a side that just plays white ball cricket you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.
The Hundred is just T20 dressed up with nowhere to go. No history. No links to Counties but a vehicle invented by the ECB to make them and their Board wealthier. So, as I've suggested previously:
(1) Get rid of The Hundred
(2) Reduce Central Contracts to a minimal amount and pay players on a per squad and appearance basis thus encouraging them to play more CC games to prove themselves
(3) Have three Divisions of six in the CC with home and away games played (10 in total) in the months of May/June/July/August with dates to avoid clashing with the Tests if possible. ECB to subsidise entrance to CC games to the extent that it becomes £10 for adults and free for children
(2) Re-vamp The Blast and get the same amount of games, if not more, on terrestrial TV as were shown of The Hundred ensuring that all Counties get an opportunity to be shown at least once. Two Divisions of nine, home and away, with QF as well as the Finals day for the SF & F
(5) Royal London - two Divisions of nine with QF, SF & F
By my reckoning Counties will play, weather permitting and not including pre-season friendlies, a minimum of 36 and up to 42 matches. Plenty of different forms of cricket to cater to all tastes and an increase in quality too
I genuinely appreciate your comments and I am very grateful that you've seen clear to distance yourself from the nonsense that I have said I don't like Test cricket.
Your other five points I am aware of, because you've repeated them (without suggesting how they can be paid for) a number of times. I reserve the right to disagree with them all.
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
Probably because of your "views' on the Hundred and the way you "discuss" them. The Hundred continuing is going to add to the test team issues
Because I can see the financial benefit of The Hundred, that must mean I've "stated" I don't enjoy Test cricket? That really is bizarre. But, thank you for explaining it.
(It's wrong, and I haven't, for the record).
You were replying to me and I didn't say it. It's not all about finance
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
I've found exactly what you said{
I don't have much interest at all in county cricket. For those that do - great! I like other formats. And my preference is for the highest-standard of cricket, which is tests, obviously. But if some people want to continue to sit and watch their teams play long-format, low-standard (in the main) county cricket, then all power to them.
So it is true that you do enjoy Test cricket. But I was correct when I said that "by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC". And if you think that we can produce a decent Test side by selecting a side that just plays white ball cricket you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.
The Hundred is just T20 dressed up with nowhere to go. No history. No links to Counties but a vehicle invented by the ECB to make them and their Board wealthier. So, as I've suggested previously:
(1) Get rid of The Hundred
(2) Reduce Central Contracts to a minimal amount and pay players on a per squad and appearance basis thus encouraging them to play more CC games to prove themselves
(3) Have three Divisions of six in the CC with home and away games played (10 in total) in the months of May/June/July/August with dates to avoid clashing with the Tests if possible. ECB to subsidise entrance to CC games to the extent that it becomes £10 for adults and free for children
(2) Re-vamp The Blast and get the same amount of games, if not more, on terrestrial TV as were shown of The Hundred ensuring that all Counties get an opportunity to be shown at least once. Two Divisions of nine, home and away, with QF as well as the Finals day for the SF & F
(5) Royal London - two Divisions of nine with QF, SF & F
By my reckoning Counties will play, weather permitting and not including pre-season friendlies, a minimum of 36 and up to 42 matches. Plenty of different forms of cricket to cater to all tastes and an increase in quality too
That still doesn’t help with the poor standard of cricket in the Counties. How does playing against Kent and it’s attack prepare a test batsman ? And we are due to be in Div 1.
The only way to improve the standard is to ditch the number of counties and consolidate into eight areas.
That way the best batsmen will consistently play against the best bowlers. And not just one per team.
The Kent attack, especially with Matt Henry in it, will hardly be weak especially if we allow three overseas per team. If we add those returning English internationals too then at least half of each side would be capable of or have already played at the highest level.
If you have, as you suggest, eight areas it creates all sorts of issues. We want to increase participation not reduce it and by, effectively, closing down 10 centres of excellence that is reducing access and pathways. Are we closing The Oval (Surrey) or Lords (Middlesex) down, for example, because surely they can't be both be part of those eight as this would leave only six centres in England and Wales?
The three Division format would be established based on next season's results. With one promotion place it would still be possible to reach the top division in two years even if a County were in Division 3 initially. It is unfortunate that there has to be Counties in a 3rd tier but it's the only way to ensure both the survival of the four day game, an improvement in standard and a pathway for all youngsters.
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
I've found exactly what you said{
I don't have much interest at all in county cricket. For those that do - great! I like other formats. And my preference is for the highest-standard of cricket, which is tests, obviously. But if some people want to continue to sit and watch their teams play long-format, low-standard (in the main) county cricket, then all power to them.
So it is true that you do enjoy Test cricket. But I was correct when I said that "by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC". And if you think that we can produce a decent Test side by selecting a side that just plays white ball cricket you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.
The Hundred is just T20 dressed up with nowhere to go. No history. No links to Counties but a vehicle invented by the ECB to make them and their Board wealthier. So, as I've suggested previously:
(1) Get rid of The Hundred
(2) Reduce Central Contracts to a minimal amount and pay players on a per squad and appearance basis thus encouraging them to play more CC games to prove themselves
(3) Have three Divisions of six in the CC with home and away games played (10 in total) in the months of May/June/July/August with dates to avoid clashing with the Tests if possible. ECB to subsidise entrance to CC games to the extent that it becomes £10 for adults and free for children
(2) Re-vamp The Blast and get the same amount of games, if not more, on terrestrial TV as were shown of The Hundred ensuring that all Counties get an opportunity to be shown at least once. Two Divisions of nine, home and away, with QF as well as the Finals day for the SF & F
(5) Royal London - two Divisions of nine with QF, SF & F
By my reckoning Counties will play, weather permitting and not including pre-season friendlies, a minimum of 36 and up to 42 matches. Plenty of different forms of cricket to cater to all tastes and an increase in quality too
That still doesn’t help with the poor standard of cricket in the Counties. How does playing against Kent and it’s attack prepare a test batsman ? And we are due to be in Div 1.
The only way to improve the standard is to ditch the number of counties and consolidate into eight areas.
That way the best batsmen will consistently play against the best bowlers. And not just one per team.
Now apply what you have said to football. Far to many teams in London lets have one team in South London and improve the standard Franchise cricket is what you are suggesting and it would be no more accepted in cricket than it would in football.
Surely someone here has a positive PCR result they can lend to Foakes so that he can get into Australia to play in the final test. I’m pretty sure there is precedent here for sportsmen.
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
I've found exactly what you said{
I don't have much interest at all in county cricket. For those that do - great! I like other formats. And my preference is for the highest-standard of cricket, which is tests, obviously. But if some people want to continue to sit and watch their teams play long-format, low-standard (in the main) county cricket, then all power to them.
So it is true that you do enjoy Test cricket. But I was correct when I said that "by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC". And if you think that we can produce a decent Test side by selecting a side that just plays white ball cricket you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.
The Hundred is just T20 dressed up with nowhere to go. No history. No links to Counties but a vehicle invented by the ECB to make them and their Board wealthier. So, as I've suggested previously:
(1) Get rid of The Hundred
(2) Reduce Central Contracts to a minimal amount and pay players on a per squad and appearance basis thus encouraging them to play more CC games to prove themselves
(3) Have three Divisions of six in the CC with home and away games played (10 in total) in the months of May/June/July/August with dates to avoid clashing with the Tests if possible. ECB to subsidise entrance to CC games to the extent that it becomes £10 for adults and free for children
(2) Re-vamp The Blast and get the same amount of games, if not more, on terrestrial TV as were shown of The Hundred ensuring that all Counties get an opportunity to be shown at least once. Two Divisions of nine, home and away, with QF as well as the Finals day for the SF & F
(5) Royal London - two Divisions of nine with QF, SF & F
By my reckoning Counties will play, weather permitting and not including pre-season friendlies, a minimum of 36 and up to 42 matches. Plenty of different forms of cricket to cater to all tastes and an increase in quality too
That still doesn’t help with the poor standard of cricket in the Counties. How does playing against Kent and it’s attack prepare a test batsman ? And we are due to be in Div 1.
The only way to improve the standard is to ditch the number of counties and consolidate into eight areas.
That way the best batsmen will consistently play against the best bowlers. And not just one per team.
Now apply what you have said to football. Far to many teams in London lets have one team in South London and improve the standard Franchise cricket is what you are suggesting and it would be no more accepted in cricket than it would in football.
We are talking about improving the standard of the national team. In football this is not an issue.
And to be fair we are getting 10k plus spectators turning up to see Third tier football, where in county championship cricket you are lucky to see a crowd of 100 at the highest level.
Billings is 2 years older than Foakes and averages 4 less with the bat in FC cricket
But plays at Canterbury and not the Oval
And your point?
That Billings does, indeed play at - and, in fact, captain - the Oval.
Not in the County Championship he doesn't - by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC so I didn't expect you to understand that they use a red ball both in that comp and in Test cricket and that they also wear "whites" in both comps too. In fact, you've stated previously that you don't enjoy Test cricket so, on that basis, I can't really understand why you both to come on here. Unless it's to wind people up that do but I can't believe that to be the case!
I really don't know where you get this nonsense from.
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
I've found exactly what you said{
I don't have much interest at all in county cricket. For those that do - great! I like other formats. And my preference is for the highest-standard of cricket, which is tests, obviously. But if some people want to continue to sit and watch their teams play long-format, low-standard (in the main) county cricket, then all power to them.
So it is true that you do enjoy Test cricket. But I was correct when I said that "by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC". And if you think that we can produce a decent Test side by selecting a side that just plays white ball cricket you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.
The Hundred is just T20 dressed up with nowhere to go. No history. No links to Counties but a vehicle invented by the ECB to make them and their Board wealthier. So, as I've suggested previously:
(1) Get rid of The Hundred
(2) Reduce Central Contracts to a minimal amount and pay players on a per squad and appearance basis thus encouraging them to play more CC games to prove themselves
(3) Have three Divisions of six in the CC with home and away games played (10 in total) in the months of May/June/July/August with dates to avoid clashing with the Tests if possible. ECB to subsidise entrance to CC games to the extent that it becomes £10 for adults and free for children
(2) Re-vamp The Blast and get the same amount of games, if not more, on terrestrial TV as were shown of The Hundred ensuring that all Counties get an opportunity to be shown at least once. Two Divisions of nine, home and away, with QF as well as the Finals day for the SF & F
(5) Royal London - two Divisions of nine with QF, SF & F
By my reckoning Counties will play, weather permitting and not including pre-season friendlies, a minimum of 36 and up to 42 matches. Plenty of different forms of cricket to cater to all tastes and an increase in quality too
That still doesn’t help with the poor standard of cricket in the Counties. How does playing against Kent and it’s attack prepare a test batsman ? And we are due to be in Div 1.
The only way to improve the standard is to ditch the number of counties and consolidate into eight areas.
That way the best batsmen will consistently play against the best bowlers. And not just one per team.
Now apply what you have said to football. Far to many teams in London lets have one team in South London and improve the standard Franchise cricket is what you are suggesting and it would be no more accepted in cricket than it would in football.
But the reverse is "the England team would be far better if they played more games, even if they were in the second and third division".
I think what billysboots is suggesting is that the England team would improve to a greater extent if there were fewer, better teams playing a consistently higher standard than there are. It's hard to disagree.
Comments
I made what I thought was a harmless quip to counter your comment that Billings doesn't play at The Oval. A few people found it a bit funny - I am sorry you seem to have taken it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the comment.
Billings just happens to be "lucky" to be in the country, and a "short" drive away. It's lucky he hadn't been in Perth, as that would have been a horrendous journey
Sammy was drafted into the all-rounder's role in the West Indies team with the objective to "stop the team getting any worse". He's not the best all-rounder in the world and would probably never have claimed to be. But he had enough skill, nous and experience to plug obvious gaps in the team. And he was a good enough bowler and a decent batsman to hold his place in - and improve - the team.
Foakes can do this. He's an exceptional 'keeper and a better batsman than the recent occupants of the 7-8-9 batting positions. On that basis, his inclusion - for example, on the Richards-Botham tour in March - will slow or even halt England's decline. A confident, competant wicket-keeper, plying his trade on pitches that are traditionally easier to keep on than many, and with no need to justify a run of scores befitting a top order batsman.
To be clear, he has never been my choice as England's wicket-keeper-batsman. I don't see him being able to destroy attacks in the way in which I hoped Buttler, Bairstow or even Billings could. Had any of them done so, the debate would have been closed.
But now, I think it's time for Foakes to be given the first-choice 'keeper role for a whole series and the promise that, if he's successful, he keeps the role for June's series against New Zealand.
It would be an "experiment" with very little downside. England would be choosing the best wicket-keeper and could then start to address the problems with many of the other ten positions. (For my money, only three other berths are secure: Crawley (as opener), Malan and Root) - but that's another debate.
However... Sammy's problem is also likely to be Foakes's. By the of his run in the Test team, he was not performing well enough to hold down a position as either a batsman or bowler, preventing the selectors from being able to pick a specialist in one of those two roles. In short, the player who had stopped the West Indies getting any worse had become the reason they couldn't get any better.
That's the risk with Foakes. He's an excellent wicket-keeper. Arguably better than any other Test 'keeper in the world. But he'll never destroy teams in the way that, for example, Gilchrist used to. And that's the benchmark Tests teams should aim for.
I think, for the next two series - possibly longer - Foakes's inclusion would be a risk, but it's one that I hope the selectors (whoever they turn out to be) are willing to take.
(It's wrong, and I haven't, for the record).
I said I don't know where you (meaning the person who posted the nonsense) get this nonsense from.
And you replied 'Probably because of your "views' on the Hundred and the way you "discuss" them'.
I don't have much interest at all in county cricket. For those that do - great! I like other formats. And my preference is for the highest-standard of cricket, which is tests, obviously. But if some people want to continue to sit and watch their teams play long-format, low-standard (in the main) county cricket, then all power to them.
So it is true that you do enjoy Test cricket. But I was correct when I said that "by your own admission you have no interest or knowledge about the CC". And if you think that we can produce a decent Test side by selecting a side that just plays white ball cricket you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.
The Hundred is just T20 dressed up with nowhere to go. No history. No links to Counties but a vehicle invented by the ECB to make them and their Board wealthier. So, as I've suggested previously:
(1) Get rid of The Hundred
(2) Reduce Central Contracts to a minimal amount and pay players on a per squad and appearance basis thus encouraging them to play more CC games to prove themselves
(3) Have three Divisions of six in the CC with home and away games played (10 in total) in the months of May/June/July/August with dates to avoid clashing with the Tests if possible. ECB to subsidise entrance to CC games to the extent that it becomes £10 for adults and free for children
(2) Re-vamp The Blast and get the same amount of games, if not more, on terrestrial TV as were shown of The Hundred ensuring that all Counties get an opportunity to be shown at least once. Two Divisions of nine, home and away, with QF as well as the Finals day for the SF & F
(5) Royal London - two Divisions of nine with QF, SF & F
By my reckoning Counties will play, weather permitting and not including pre-season friendlies, a minimum of 36 and up to 42 matches. Plenty of different forms of cricket to cater to all tastes and an increase in quality too
Your other five points I am aware of, because you've repeated them (without suggesting how they can be paid for) a number of times. I reserve the right to disagree with them all.
If you have, as you suggest, eight areas it creates all sorts of issues. We want to increase participation not reduce it and by, effectively, closing down 10 centres of excellence that is reducing access and pathways. Are we closing The Oval (Surrey) or Lords (Middlesex) down, for example, because surely they can't be both be part of those eight as this would leave only six centres in England and Wales?
The three Division format would be established based on next season's results. With one promotion place it would still be possible to reach the top division in two years even if a County were in Division 3 initially. It is unfortunate that there has to be Counties in a 3rd tier but it's the only way to ensure both the survival of the four day game, an improvement in standard and a pathway for all youngsters.
Far to many teams in London lets have one team in South London and improve the standard
Franchise cricket is what you are suggesting and it would be no more accepted in cricket than it would in football.
I think what billysboots is suggesting is that the England team would improve to a greater extent if there were fewer, better teams playing a consistently higher standard than there are. It's hard to disagree.