Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
How many world cups were there for the duration of the JPL? Unless I'm incorrect, there were just three:
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs) 1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs) 1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say.
In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted.
No team has ever got beyond the group stage of a 50 over WC while running a domestic 100 ball competition let alone win one!
Oh and Mark Wood used to bowl at up to 95mph off his shortened run up which goes to demonstrate how pitiful your attempts at belittling the pace that the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts etc could produce in the JPL. He changed it on the advice of Michael Holding - not to make him quicker but to put less stress on his body.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
How many world cups were there for the duration of the JPL? Unless I'm incorrect, there were just three:
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs) 1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs) 1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say.
In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted.
No team has ever got beyond the group stage of a 50 over WC while running a domestic 100 ball competition let alone win one!
Oh and Mark Wood used to bowl at up to 95mph off his shortened run up which goes to demonstrate how pitiful your attempts at belittling the pace that the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts etc could produce in the JPL. He changed it on the advice of Michael Holding - not to make him quicker but to put less stress on his body.
I would disagree with anyone suggesting an eight-yard run up would improve their fast bowling.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
How many world cups were there for the duration of the JPL? Unless I'm incorrect, there were just three:
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs) 1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs) 1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say.
In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted.
No team has ever got beyond the group stage of a 50 over WC while running a domestic 100 ball competition let alone win one!
Oh and Mark Wood used to bowl at up to 95mph off his shortened run up which goes to demonstrate how pitiful your attempts at belittling the pace that the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts etc could produce in the JPL. He changed it on the advice of Michael Holding - not to make him quicker but to put less stress on his body.
I would disagree with anyone suggesting an eight-yard run up would improve their fast bowling.
The JPL was 15 yards not 8 yards. The point you were so desperately trying to make, in calling the likes of Holding, Roberts and Garner "Tommy Trundlers", that they were incapable of bowling quick off a shortened run up is absolute tosh. Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC.
All to defend the Hundred. A competition lambasted by current and former pros in the game that do not have a financial interest in promoting it, because it stops any other form of cricket being played by the best players in August. I get that you have never warmed to county cricket but, for someone that allegedly supports England, it really is bizarre that you refuse to recognise that and keep trying to go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent to justify your reasoning.
This is just some of the damage the Hundred is doing to the game:
No county cricket in August = no spin bowlers being produced
No players allowed to play 50 over cricket in August = players not learning how to adapt from "crash, bang, wallop" cricket to pacing an innings and the resulting exit in the group stage of a WC and winning just 7 of the last 20 matches
No Test cricket in August = denying school children the opportunity to see international cricket, including the Ashes (for the first time ever in its history over here), when they are off from school
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
How many world cups were there for the duration of the JPL? Unless I'm incorrect, there were just three:
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs) 1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs) 1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say.
In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted.
No team has ever got beyond the group stage of a 50 over WC while running a domestic 100 ball competition let alone win one!
Oh and Mark Wood used to bowl at up to 95mph off his shortened run up which goes to demonstrate how pitiful your attempts at belittling the pace that the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts etc could produce in the JPL. He changed it on the advice of Michael Holding - not to make him quicker but to put less stress on his body.
I would disagree with anyone suggesting an eight-yard run up would improve their fast bowling.
The JPL was 15 yards not 8 yards. The point you were so desperately trying to make, in calling the likes of Holding, Roberts and Garner "Tommy Trundlers", that they were incapable of bowling quick off a shortened run up is absolute tosh. Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC.
All to defend the Hundred. A competition lambasted by current and former pros in the game that do not have a financial interest in promoting it, because it stops any other form of cricket being played by the best players in August. I get that you have never warmed to county cricket but, for someone that allegedly supports England, it really is bizarre that you refuse to recognise that and keep trying to go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent to justify your reasoning.
This is just some of the damage the Hundred is doing to the game:
No county cricket in August = no spin bowlers being produced
No players allowed to play 50 over cricket in August = players not learning how to adapt from "crash, bang, wallop" cricket to pacing an innings and the resulting exit in the group stage of a WC and winning just 7 of the last 20 matches
No Test cricket in August = denying school children the opportunity to see international cricket, including the Ashes (for the first time ever in its history over here), when they are off from school
OK, let's backtrack a bit.
First, I didn't call Holding, Roberts and Garner, "Tommy Trundlers". I used that as a sweeping generalisation of the lower-paced, stifled bowling seen every week throughout the country. If anyone thinks that JPL bowlers bowled at the same pace as they did in first class cricket, I will have to disagree with them.
Second, I didn't defend The Hundred. You brought it up (again); I merely compared it to the JPL. I think it bares a very good comparison, as do T20s, 50-over over cricket and many other formats. Some may think that the Sunday afternoon stroll-about was the pinnacle of domestic cricket; or that it was merely on par with some of the other competitions. I happen to think it was a very poor standard. And, I guess, if I am wrong, there will be a grounswell of opinion strong enough to bring it back.
Third, I haven't tried to "go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent". I simply stated that Sunday afternoon, 40-over, limited run up cricket was poor quality, even though it could be fun to watch. Again, others might think it's one of the greatest forms of the sport and they're absolutely at liberty to think that - I just wouldn't agree.
Fourth, "Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC". I never made that claim!
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
How many world cups were there for the duration of the JPL? Unless I'm incorrect, there were just three:
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs) 1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs) 1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say.
In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted.
No team has ever got beyond the group stage of a 50 over WC while running a domestic 100 ball competition let alone win one!
Oh and Mark Wood used to bowl at up to 95mph off his shortened run up which goes to demonstrate how pitiful your attempts at belittling the pace that the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts etc could produce in the JPL. He changed it on the advice of Michael Holding - not to make him quicker but to put less stress on his body.
I would disagree with anyone suggesting an eight-yard run up would improve their fast bowling.
The JPL was 15 yards not 8 yards. The point you were so desperately trying to make, in calling the likes of Holding, Roberts and Garner "Tommy Trundlers", that they were incapable of bowling quick off a shortened run up is absolute tosh. Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC.
All to defend the Hundred. A competition lambasted by current and former pros in the game that do not have a financial interest in promoting it, because it stops any other form of cricket being played by the best players in August. I get that you have never warmed to county cricket but, for someone that allegedly supports England, it really is bizarre that you refuse to recognise that and keep trying to go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent to justify your reasoning.
This is just some of the damage the Hundred is doing to the game:
No county cricket in August = no spin bowlers being produced
No players allowed to play 50 over cricket in August = players not learning how to adapt from "crash, bang, wallop" cricket to pacing an innings and the resulting exit in the group stage of a WC and winning just 7 of the last 20 matches
No Test cricket in August = denying school children the opportunity to see international cricket, including the Ashes (for the first time ever in its history over here), when they are off from school
OK, let's backtrack a bit.
First, I didn't call Holding, Roberts and Garner, "Tommy Trundlers". I used that as a sweeping generalisation of the lower-paced, stifled bowling seen every week throughout the country. If anyone thinks that JPL bowlers bowled at the same pace as they did in first class cricket, I will have to disagree with them.
Second, I didn't defend The Hundred. You brought it up (again); I merely compared it to the JPL. I think it bares a very good comparison, as do T20s, 50-over over cricket and many other formats. Some may think that the Sunday afternoon stroll-about was the pinnacle of domestic cricket; or that it was merely on par with some of the other competitions. I happen to think it was a very poor standard. And, I guess, if I am wrong, there will be a grounswell of opinion strong enough to bring it back.
Third, I haven't tried to "go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent". I simply stated that Sunday afternoon, 40-over, limited run up cricket was poor quality, even though it could be fun to watch. Again, others might think it's one of the greatest forms of the sport and they're absolutely at liberty to think that - I just wouldn't agree.
Fourth, "Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC". I never made that claim!
If you want to backtrack then read my original post properly. At no point did I advocate the return of the JPL:
And the John Player League on the TV on a Sunday was one of the staple diet of cricket in England. Imagine seeing the modern day equivalent equivalent of Joel Garner and Ian Botham bowling at Gordon Greenidge and Barry Richards. We could have had the 50 over comp at the start of the season, as you say and post that, the CC from Tuesday to Friday and a re-vamped Vitality Blast on a Sunday utilising the same money and free-to-air coverage and financial support that the Hundred was afforded.
But that wouldn't have given the ECB what they wanted for themselves. We are now witnessing the start of the ultimate reduction to 8/10 First Class counties and owned by foreign entities too. This has already started with counties being given second tier status in the Women's game even though they have a better infrastructure and have produced more players than their Test/Hundred hosting counterparts.
My point about the JPL is that it gave the opportunity for our players to play against the best in the world. As the county championship did too. In August when wickets are best and spinners come to the fore.
However, I am glad that you have confirmed that, in not now defending the Hundred, you finally accept that the competition has damaged the prospects of our international team. At least we are agreed on that.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
How many world cups were there for the duration of the JPL? Unless I'm incorrect, there were just three:
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs) 1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs) 1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say.
In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted.
No team has ever got beyond the group stage of a 50 over WC while running a domestic 100 ball competition let alone win one!
Oh and Mark Wood used to bowl at up to 95mph off his shortened run up which goes to demonstrate how pitiful your attempts at belittling the pace that the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts etc could produce in the JPL. He changed it on the advice of Michael Holding - not to make him quicker but to put less stress on his body.
I would disagree with anyone suggesting an eight-yard run up would improve their fast bowling.
The JPL was 15 yards not 8 yards. The point you were so desperately trying to make, in calling the likes of Holding, Roberts and Garner "Tommy Trundlers", that they were incapable of bowling quick off a shortened run up is absolute tosh. Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC.
All to defend the Hundred. A competition lambasted by current and former pros in the game that do not have a financial interest in promoting it, because it stops any other form of cricket being played by the best players in August. I get that you have never warmed to county cricket but, for someone that allegedly supports England, it really is bizarre that you refuse to recognise that and keep trying to go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent to justify your reasoning.
This is just some of the damage the Hundred is doing to the game:
No county cricket in August = no spin bowlers being produced
No players allowed to play 50 over cricket in August = players not learning how to adapt from "crash, bang, wallop" cricket to pacing an innings and the resulting exit in the group stage of a WC and winning just 7 of the last 20 matches
No Test cricket in August = denying school children the opportunity to see international cricket, including the Ashes (for the first time ever in its history over here), when they are off from school
OK, let's backtrack a bit.
First, I didn't call Holding, Roberts and Garner, "Tommy Trundlers". I used that as a sweeping generalisation of the lower-paced, stifled bowling seen every week throughout the country. If anyone thinks that JPL bowlers bowled at the same pace as they did in first class cricket, I will have to disagree with them.
Second, I didn't defend The Hundred. You brought it up (again); I merely compared it to the JPL. I think it bares a very good comparison, as do T20s, 50-over over cricket and many other formats. Some may think that the Sunday afternoon stroll-about was the pinnacle of domestic cricket; or that it was merely on par with some of the other competitions. I happen to think it was a very poor standard. And, I guess, if I am wrong, there will be a grounswell of opinion strong enough to bring it back.
Third, I haven't tried to "go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent". I simply stated that Sunday afternoon, 40-over, limited run up cricket was poor quality, even though it could be fun to watch. Again, others might think it's one of the greatest forms of the sport and they're absolutely at liberty to think that - I just wouldn't agree.
Fourth, "Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC". I never made that claim!
If you want to backtrack then read my original post properly. At no point did I advocate the return of the JPL:
And the John Player League on the TV on a Sunday was one of the staple diet of cricket in England. Imagine seeing the modern day equivalent equivalent of Joel Garner and Ian Botham bowling at Gordon Greenidge and Barry Richards. We could have had the 50 over comp at the start of the season, as you say and post that, the CC from Tuesday to Friday and a re-vamped Vitality Blast on a Sunday utilising the same money and free-to-air coverage and financial support that the Hundred was afforded.
But that wouldn't have given the ECB what they wanted for themselves. We are now witnessing the start of the ultimate reduction to 8/10 First Class counties and owned by foreign entities too. This has already started with counties being given second tier status in the Women's game even though they have a better infrastructure and have produced more players than their Test/Hundred hosting counterparts.
My point about the JPL is that it gave the opportunity for our players to play against the best in the world. As the county championship did too. In August when wickets are best and spinners come to the fore.
However, I am glad that you have confirmed that, in not now defending the Hundred, you finally accept that the competition has damaged the prospects of our international team. At least we are agreed on that.
I completely agree that the JPL gave the opportunity for our players to play against - some of - the best in the world. Equally - and this is the perpetual conundrum that affects county cricket - by helping overseas players acclimatise to English conditions, we nullified our home advantage, in 1975, 1979 and 1983.
I wasn't defending The Hundred in my comments earlier. That is not to say I wouldn't be happy to do so in future.
I guess you were mistaken when you thought you read that I claimed the West Indies were the only side to win the WC. Easily done.
Think the overall issue is that in the olden days England was the place to play cricket, and cricket had a much higher status than now. This may have been pre Atari and to make a call you had to use the phone on the stairs or a phone box.
The plethora of other things to watch and do for the spectators , and the riches to be made travelling around the world as a player mean that whatever we do we aren’t going to get the best players in the world to commit to playing all season in England for one county on a regular basis or annual basis.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
How many world cups were there for the duration of the JPL? Unless I'm incorrect, there were just three:
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs) 1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs) 1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say.
In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted.
No team has ever got beyond the group stage of a 50 over WC while running a domestic 100 ball competition let alone win one!
Oh and Mark Wood used to bowl at up to 95mph off his shortened run up which goes to demonstrate how pitiful your attempts at belittling the pace that the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts etc could produce in the JPL. He changed it on the advice of Michael Holding - not to make him quicker but to put less stress on his body.
I would disagree with anyone suggesting an eight-yard run up would improve their fast bowling.
The JPL was 15 yards not 8 yards. The point you were so desperately trying to make, in calling the likes of Holding, Roberts and Garner "Tommy Trundlers", that they were incapable of bowling quick off a shortened run up is absolute tosh. Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC.
All to defend the Hundred. A competition lambasted by current and former pros in the game that do not have a financial interest in promoting it, because it stops any other form of cricket being played by the best players in August. I get that you have never warmed to county cricket but, for someone that allegedly supports England, it really is bizarre that you refuse to recognise that and keep trying to go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent to justify your reasoning.
This is just some of the damage the Hundred is doing to the game:
No county cricket in August = no spin bowlers being produced
No players allowed to play 50 over cricket in August = players not learning how to adapt from "crash, bang, wallop" cricket to pacing an innings and the resulting exit in the group stage of a WC and winning just 7 of the last 20 matches
No Test cricket in August = denying school children the opportunity to see international cricket, including the Ashes (for the first time ever in its history over here), when they are off from school
OK, let's backtrack a bit.
First, I didn't call Holding, Roberts and Garner, "Tommy Trundlers". I used that as a sweeping generalisation of the lower-paced, stifled bowling seen every week throughout the country. If anyone thinks that JPL bowlers bowled at the same pace as they did in first class cricket, I will have to disagree with them.
Second, I didn't defend The Hundred. You brought it up (again); I merely compared it to the JPL. I think it bares a very good comparison, as do T20s, 50-over over cricket and many other formats. Some may think that the Sunday afternoon stroll-about was the pinnacle of domestic cricket; or that it was merely on par with some of the other competitions. I happen to think it was a very poor standard. And, I guess, if I am wrong, there will be a grounswell of opinion strong enough to bring it back.
Third, I haven't tried to "go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent". I simply stated that Sunday afternoon, 40-over, limited run up cricket was poor quality, even though it could be fun to watch. Again, others might think it's one of the greatest forms of the sport and they're absolutely at liberty to think that - I just wouldn't agree.
Fourth, "Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC". I never made that claim!
If you want to backtrack then read my original post properly. At no point did I advocate the return of the JPL:
And the John Player League on the TV on a Sunday was one of the staple diet of cricket in England. Imagine seeing the modern day equivalent equivalent of Joel Garner and Ian Botham bowling at Gordon Greenidge and Barry Richards. We could have had the 50 over comp at the start of the season, as you say and post that, the CC from Tuesday to Friday and a re-vamped Vitality Blast on a Sunday utilising the same money and free-to-air coverage and financial support that the Hundred was afforded.
But that wouldn't have given the ECB what they wanted for themselves. We are now witnessing the start of the ultimate reduction to 8/10 First Class counties and owned by foreign entities too. This has already started with counties being given second tier status in the Women's game even though they have a better infrastructure and have produced more players than their Test/Hundred hosting counterparts.
My point about the JPL is that it gave the opportunity for our players to play against the best in the world. As the county championship did too. In August when wickets are best and spinners come to the fore.
However, I am glad that you have confirmed that, in not now defending the Hundred, you finally accept that the competition has damaged the prospects of our international team. At least we are agreed on that.
I completely agree that the JPL gave the opportunity for our players to play against - some of - the best in the world. Equally - and this is the perpetual conundrum that affects county cricket - by helping overseas players acclimatise to English conditions, we nullified our home advantage, in 1975, 1979 and 1983.
I wasn't defending The Hundred in my comments earlier. That is not to say I wouldn't be happy to do so in future.
I guess you were mistaken when you thought you read that I claimed the West Indies were the only side to win the WC. Easily done.
I knew full well what you meant which is why I corrected your original statement when I said India had won it during the course of the JPL. But then you knew that because you acknowledged the fact -"In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted. " I didn't include the "during the period of the JPL" the second time I mentioned it because I figured we were on the same page. Easy assumption for you to make and one that you are always keen to pick up on and send arguments off at a tangent. It is your strength after all.
But I do reiterate that I am so pleased that, in not seeking to defend the Hundred, you accept, not just my opinion but that of the England batting coach and the England opening batsman, that the Hundred is responsible for our poor form in ODIs.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
How many world cups were there for the duration of the JPL? Unless I'm incorrect, there were just three:
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs) 1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs) 1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say.
In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted.
No team has ever got beyond the group stage of a 50 over WC while running a domestic 100 ball competition let alone win one!
Oh and Mark Wood used to bowl at up to 95mph off his shortened run up which goes to demonstrate how pitiful your attempts at belittling the pace that the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts etc could produce in the JPL. He changed it on the advice of Michael Holding - not to make him quicker but to put less stress on his body.
I would disagree with anyone suggesting an eight-yard run up would improve their fast bowling.
The JPL was 15 yards not 8 yards. The point you were so desperately trying to make, in calling the likes of Holding, Roberts and Garner "Tommy Trundlers", that they were incapable of bowling quick off a shortened run up is absolute tosh. Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC.
All to defend the Hundred. A competition lambasted by current and former pros in the game that do not have a financial interest in promoting it, because it stops any other form of cricket being played by the best players in August. I get that you have never warmed to county cricket but, for someone that allegedly supports England, it really is bizarre that you refuse to recognise that and keep trying to go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent to justify your reasoning.
This is just some of the damage the Hundred is doing to the game:
No county cricket in August = no spin bowlers being produced
No players allowed to play 50 over cricket in August = players not learning how to adapt from "crash, bang, wallop" cricket to pacing an innings and the resulting exit in the group stage of a WC and winning just 7 of the last 20 matches
No Test cricket in August = denying school children the opportunity to see international cricket, including the Ashes (for the first time ever in its history over here), when they are off from school
OK, let's backtrack a bit.
First, I didn't call Holding, Roberts and Garner, "Tommy Trundlers". I used that as a sweeping generalisation of the lower-paced, stifled bowling seen every week throughout the country. If anyone thinks that JPL bowlers bowled at the same pace as they did in first class cricket, I will have to disagree with them.
Second, I didn't defend The Hundred. You brought it up (again); I merely compared it to the JPL. I think it bares a very good comparison, as do T20s, 50-over over cricket and many other formats. Some may think that the Sunday afternoon stroll-about was the pinnacle of domestic cricket; or that it was merely on par with some of the other competitions. I happen to think it was a very poor standard. And, I guess, if I am wrong, there will be a grounswell of opinion strong enough to bring it back.
Third, I haven't tried to "go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent". I simply stated that Sunday afternoon, 40-over, limited run up cricket was poor quality, even though it could be fun to watch. Again, others might think it's one of the greatest forms of the sport and they're absolutely at liberty to think that - I just wouldn't agree.
Fourth, "Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC". I never made that claim!
If you want to backtrack then read my original post properly. At no point did I advocate the return of the JPL:
And the John Player League on the TV on a Sunday was one of the staple diet of cricket in England. Imagine seeing the modern day equivalent equivalent of Joel Garner and Ian Botham bowling at Gordon Greenidge and Barry Richards. We could have had the 50 over comp at the start of the season, as you say and post that, the CC from Tuesday to Friday and a re-vamped Vitality Blast on a Sunday utilising the same money and free-to-air coverage and financial support that the Hundred was afforded.
But that wouldn't have given the ECB what they wanted for themselves. We are now witnessing the start of the ultimate reduction to 8/10 First Class counties and owned by foreign entities too. This has already started with counties being given second tier status in the Women's game even though they have a better infrastructure and have produced more players than their Test/Hundred hosting counterparts.
My point about the JPL is that it gave the opportunity for our players to play against the best in the world. As the county championship did too. In August when wickets are best and spinners come to the fore.
However, I am glad that you have confirmed that, in not now defending the Hundred, you finally accept that the competition has damaged the prospects of our international team. At least we are agreed on that.
I completely agree that the JPL gave the opportunity for our players to play against - some of - the best in the world. Equally - and this is the perpetual conundrum that affects county cricket - by helping overseas players acclimatise to English conditions, we nullified our home advantage, in 1975, 1979 and 1983.
I wasn't defending The Hundred in my comments earlier. That is not to say I wouldn't be happy to do so in future.
I guess you were mistaken when you thought you read that I claimed the West Indies were the only side to win the WC. Easily done.
I knew full well what you meant which is why I corrected your original statement when I said India had won it during the course of the JPL. But then you knew that because you acknowledged the fact -"In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted. " I didn't include the "during the period of the JPL" the second time I mentioned it because I figured we were on the same page. Easy assumption for you to make and one that you are always keen to pick up on and send arguments off at a tangent. It is your strength after all.
But I do reiterate that I am so pleased that, in not seeking to defend the Hundred, you accept, not just my opinion but that of the England batting coach and the England opening batsman, that the Hundred is responsible for our poor form in ODIs.
Perhaps we can leave it at that?
No. India have never won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted. No-one has.
I think leaving it at that is a good idea, because I am sure others may well become as bored as I have when correcting your gainsaying of things you think I have said.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were absolutely humiliated in the last ODI WC in coming 7th out of 10 in the group stages (finishing above Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Netherlands) and losing to New Zealand, Afghanistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, and India.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level.
This is the first time I think I have seen anyone argue that the John Player League was a success because it resulted in Ashes wins!
It's true that the West Indies produced all of the world's best fast bowlers during that time. But it would also be fair to suggest Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge, Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards and others also benefited from playing in England.
Play the best in home competitions to become the best at international level. Is that what the West Indies did in 75 and 79? India in 83? Australia in 87? Pakistan in 92? In fact, you could probably argue that the only country to "play the best in home competitions" and go on to win the World Cup would be India in 2011, the first World Cup after they launched their their white-ball franchise cricket, played by non first class teams.
It's perfectly fair to compare The Hundred with the John Player League, as you have decided to do. My belief is that the former is a significantly better, more intense competition, played to a far higher standard than the JPL. If someone were to throw criticisms at The Hundred, it would be interesting to see which of those criticisms also apply to the JPL. The energy of bowling twenty balls, after lengthy and intense warm ups at the biggest and best stadiums in the country, in full glare of live cameras and the scrutiny of analysts is incomparable to the lollopping, short run up Tommy trundlers who huffed and puffed their way through eight overs of soporific post-prandial Sunday afternoons up and down variously-populated grounds in the heyday of fag-endorsed sabbath mediocrity.
Does the JPL compare with The Hundred. Yes, in a couple of ways: the ball is the same weight and the stumps are the same size.
It was a fun, entertaining and drew flocks of people, many of whom stayed awake for substantial periods of the game. Should it be revived? No, of course not. And therein lies the issue. It just wasn't... good enough.
You are having an absolute laugh if you are attempting to compare the depth and wealth of talent of world cricket in the JPL to The Hundred. You've already named umpteen players that are infinitely better than those appearing in that Mickey Mouse so called competition! And batters had to face 48 balls from a Joel Garner, someone who you suggest bowled "Tommy Trundlers". Seriously??? Do you really not understand that Garner could bowl 85mph from the shoulder off just six yards at the throat of a batsman??? That's not 20 balls from a "has been" who has retired from international cricket and who would struggle to get anywhere near that.
Play the best in all competitions against the best and you will get the best internationals. That is what happened during the course of the JPL but they also took part in the 50, 55, 60 over competitions as well as the county Championship. And all the England internationals played in all of those too. Do you get that this might have contributed to us winning the Ashes. In Australia they have their internationals not just competing in the 4 day and 50 over competitions but also in club matches.
We've already heard from the likes of Salt and Trescothick speaking out and risking the wrath of the ECB in doing so. Here's someone else who has seen it all and doesn't need to worry about the ECB. Martin Bicknell:
November 1st:
"This might be an early assessment but chucking in batters who have only played 4 50 over matches into internationals maybe a step too far?"
4 hours ago:
"Who knew not playing any 50 over cricket, makes you not very good at 50 over cricket"
By all means, carry on with your love of The Hundred. But please don't insult those that might know a bit more than you in suggesting that holding that competition for the duration of August hasn't had an adverse affect on our Test and 50 over sides. Because ALL the evidence from experts that do not have a financial interest (so excluding former cricketers who work for Sky) have suggested that it has been detrimental.
Thanks for your comments.
I am still unconvinced that a 40-over Sunday afternoon competition with bowlers jogging in off a shortened run up - as fun as it was - is a recipe for success in international cricket. We never won a world cup in any format while playing that format domestically. Neither did anyone else.
How many world cups were there for the duration of the JPL? Unless I'm incorrect, there were just three:
1975 - West Indies beat Australia (by 17 runs) 1979 - West Indies beat England (by 92 runs) 1983 - India beat West Indies (by 43 runs)
So, a grand sample of three competitions and another team did win the world cup despite what you say.
In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted.
No team has ever got beyond the group stage of a 50 over WC while running a domestic 100 ball competition let alone win one!
Oh and Mark Wood used to bowl at up to 95mph off his shortened run up which goes to demonstrate how pitiful your attempts at belittling the pace that the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts etc could produce in the JPL. He changed it on the advice of Michael Holding - not to make him quicker but to put less stress on his body.
I would disagree with anyone suggesting an eight-yard run up would improve their fast bowling.
The JPL was 15 yards not 8 yards. The point you were so desperately trying to make, in calling the likes of Holding, Roberts and Garner "Tommy Trundlers", that they were incapable of bowling quick off a shortened run up is absolute tosh. Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC.
All to defend the Hundred. A competition lambasted by current and former pros in the game that do not have a financial interest in promoting it, because it stops any other form of cricket being played by the best players in August. I get that you have never warmed to county cricket but, for someone that allegedly supports England, it really is bizarre that you refuse to recognise that and keep trying to go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent to justify your reasoning.
This is just some of the damage the Hundred is doing to the game:
No county cricket in August = no spin bowlers being produced
No players allowed to play 50 over cricket in August = players not learning how to adapt from "crash, bang, wallop" cricket to pacing an innings and the resulting exit in the group stage of a WC and winning just 7 of the last 20 matches
No Test cricket in August = denying school children the opportunity to see international cricket, including the Ashes (for the first time ever in its history over here), when they are off from school
OK, let's backtrack a bit.
First, I didn't call Holding, Roberts and Garner, "Tommy Trundlers". I used that as a sweeping generalisation of the lower-paced, stifled bowling seen every week throughout the country. If anyone thinks that JPL bowlers bowled at the same pace as they did in first class cricket, I will have to disagree with them.
Second, I didn't defend The Hundred. You brought it up (again); I merely compared it to the JPL. I think it bares a very good comparison, as do T20s, 50-over over cricket and many other formats. Some may think that the Sunday afternoon stroll-about was the pinnacle of domestic cricket; or that it was merely on par with some of the other competitions. I happen to think it was a very poor standard. And, I guess, if I am wrong, there will be a grounswell of opinion strong enough to bring it back.
Third, I haven't tried to "go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent". I simply stated that Sunday afternoon, 40-over, limited run up cricket was poor quality, even though it could be fun to watch. Again, others might think it's one of the greatest forms of the sport and they're absolutely at liberty to think that - I just wouldn't agree.
Fourth, "Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC". I never made that claim!
If you want to backtrack then read my original post properly. At no point did I advocate the return of the JPL:
And the John Player League on the TV on a Sunday was one of the staple diet of cricket in England. Imagine seeing the modern day equivalent equivalent of Joel Garner and Ian Botham bowling at Gordon Greenidge and Barry Richards. We could have had the 50 over comp at the start of the season, as you say and post that, the CC from Tuesday to Friday and a re-vamped Vitality Blast on a Sunday utilising the same money and free-to-air coverage and financial support that the Hundred was afforded.
But that wouldn't have given the ECB what they wanted for themselves. We are now witnessing the start of the ultimate reduction to 8/10 First Class counties and owned by foreign entities too. This has already started with counties being given second tier status in the Women's game even though they have a better infrastructure and have produced more players than their Test/Hundred hosting counterparts.
My point about the JPL is that it gave the opportunity for our players to play against the best in the world. As the county championship did too. In August when wickets are best and spinners come to the fore.
However, I am glad that you have confirmed that, in not now defending the Hundred, you finally accept that the competition has damaged the prospects of our international team. At least we are agreed on that.
I completely agree that the JPL gave the opportunity for our players to play against - some of - the best in the world. Equally - and this is the perpetual conundrum that affects county cricket - by helping overseas players acclimatise to English conditions, we nullified our home advantage, in 1975, 1979 and 1983.
I wasn't defending The Hundred in my comments earlier. That is not to say I wouldn't be happy to do so in future.
I guess you were mistaken when you thought you read that I claimed the West Indies were the only side to win the WC. Easily done.
I knew full well what you meant which is why I corrected your original statement when I said India had won it during the course of the JPL. But then you knew that because you acknowledged the fact -"In that case, I stand very much corrected. I didn't think any other country won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted. " I didn't include the "during the period of the JPL" the second time I mentioned it because I figured we were on the same page. Easy assumption for you to make and one that you are always keen to pick up on and send arguments off at a tangent. It is your strength after all.
But I do reiterate that I am so pleased that, in not seeking to defend the Hundred, you accept, not just my opinion but that of the England batting coach and the England opening batsman, that the Hundred is responsible for our poor form in ODIs.
Perhaps we can leave it at that?
No. India have never won the world cup while domestically running a 40-over, Sunday afternoon tournament, with bowlers having their run ups restricted. No-one has.
I think leaving it at that is a good idea, because I am sure others may well become as bored as I have when correcting your gainsaying of things you think I have said.
Your usage of pedantry has no limiations, does it? You pick parameters of "domestic", "40-over", "Sunday afternoon" and "bowlers having their run ups restricted". I'm just surprised that you didn't add "in 30 degrees plus heat".
But thank you, nevertheless, once again, for not disputing that the Hundred has damaged our ODI team. That's all we could ask of you in the circumstances.
Alzarri Joseph suspended for 2 games for his row with Shai Hope
I'm really not surprised. His behaviour was shocking and totally disrespectful. It's one thing to visibly show your disdain at the field that has been set by the captain but to then storm off the pitch is another thing altogether. It reminded at bit of when Kepa refused to be substituted (which he then maintained was all a bit of a misunderstanding). At least Joseph has apologised to all concerned and hopefully will, as he says, learn from the experience.
Some might argue that the John Player Sunday League 40 over competition was at odds with the 60 over One Day International played at that time. And that it was a poor "quality" of cricket, with players pausing a first class game part-way through, in order to play a rushed, afternoon-only game, where bowlers were prevented from bowling off their proper run-ups. I dread to think of the opprobrium that would be launched at the ECB if it were to reintroduce a tournament that was so far at odds with "producing England cricketers".
It was brilliant to see players like Joel Garner, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and many other West Indies players making mincemeat of oppositions up and down England. It certainly helped them acclimatise to playing limited overs cricket in England. Because they kept doing very well in it, by contrast to England.
The John Player League did nothing to aid the England one day team. It coincided with three ODI World Cups being held in England - the only time the Cricket World Cup has ever been held in the same country, successively.
White-clothed, red-ball 40 over games finally fizzled out, unsponsored in 1992. Thankfully.
Making "mincemeat of oppositions up and down England". Those players highlighted above did not play for any of the counties in bold below at the time they won the John Player League :
The West Indies dominated world cricket because they had a conveyor belt of world class bowlers. It had nothing to do with those players taking part in the John Player League. Playing against world class opposition in domestic competitions improves our players because it gives them the preparation needed for when they step up. Who will the likes of Shoaib Bashir playing against in Somerset's 2nd XI? How much will they learn hitting two balls for six and then getting out in the Hundred against bowlers not fit to lace the boots of Garner, Marshall, Holding, Croft, Roberts etc etc?
We won the Ashes five out of seven series during the course of the John Player League. We've won 2/10 Ashes games during the course of the Hundred and been shown up for our weaknesses in India and Pakistan in Tests and in both ODI and T20 World Cups. We lost in the ODI final in 1979 to the West Indies who dominated cricket because they were the best in the world. No shame in that. We were
At the toss Buttler said that he had spoken to McCullum about the keeping situation and the new England white ball coach has (at last) persuaded him to relinquish the gloves to concentrate on the captaining. Buttler won the toss and chose to bowl and he returned for Cox from the ODI side with Saqib coming in for Archer. - We got off to a superb start with Saqib taking all three wickets and the Windies reduced to 18-3. The batters came and went still firing with all guns left, right and centre even at 69-5. Our fragility with the ball was exposed when Topley went off injured and in anger (threatened to throw a chair on his way off) after bowling 2.4 overs. Rashid was his usual good self but even he wasn't immune to being hit for maximums as the Windies just kept coming. Motie, coming in at 10, was incredible in hitting 33 off just balls to take the total to 182-9 but should a tail-ender really be doing that to us?
That target of 183 was going to be a record chase at Bridgetown but Salt, from the off, was superb and controlled. Jacks' shot selection once again let him down in trying to slog sweep a ball that simply wasn't there to play that shot to. As talented as he undoubtedly is, he is the one that is now vulnerable for a returning Brook or even Duckett coming in at the top to offer that left/right combo. Which brings us to Buttler, according to Finn in the studio, coming in at 3 for only the third time in his T20 career. For one ball. He was out, caught, by Motie with one of the most incredible catches ever seen. Out of position on the third man boundary in being in too far, he somehow pouched the ball, one-handed and not just above his head but behind him too. Even Buttler couldn't help smiling at how unlucky he was to be a victim of such brilliance. Bethell came in at 4 to produce an innings of maturity in front of his family and friends in front of his "home" crowd. This wasn't just about crash, bang, wallop. This was about angles, finding gaps behind square, a la Duckett for 58* off 36. A real talent. The day, however, belonged to Salt though in pacing his 103* off 53 balls to take us home with 3.1 overs to spare.
An excellent win. The area to address is that balance of the side. We do not have a second spinner in the way that other top sides do. We have "fill ins" be that Livingstone (2-0-21-1), Mousley (1-0-7-0 and really couldn't understand why he wasn't given a second over given that his first ball was a full bunger that was duly dispatched for 6) with neither Bethell or Jacks thrown the ball. Curran appears to have been find out by the analysts - just 6 wickets in his last 9 T20Is bowling spells and going at almost 10 an over in that time. He's also failed to take a wicket in 6 of his last 7 ODI spells.
Overall, though, a good platform to build on. Next one, somewhat unusually given its proximity, is tonight.
At the toss Buttler said that he had spoken to McCullum about the keeping situation and the new England white ball coach has (at last) persuaded him to relinquish the gloves to concentrate on the captaining. Buttler won the toss and chose to bowl and he returned for Cox from the ODI side with Saqib coming in for Archer. - We got off to a superb start with Saqib taking all three wickets and the Windies reduced to 18-3. The batters came and went still firing with all guns left, right and centre even at 69-5. Our fragility with the ball was exposed when Topley went off injured and in anger (threatened to throw a chair on his way off) after bowling 2.4 overs. Rashid was his usual good self but even he wasn't immune to being hit for maximums as the Windies just kept coming. Motie, coming in at 10, was incredible in hitting 33 off just balls to take the total to 182-9 but should a tail-ender really be doing that to us?
That target of 183 was going to be a record chase at Bridgetown but Salt, from the off, was superb and controlled. Jacks' shot selection once again let him down in trying to slog sweep a ball that simply wasn't there to play that shot to. As talented as he undoubtedly is, he is the one that is now vulnerable for a returning Brook or even Duckett coming in at the top to offer that left/right combo. Which brings us to Buttler, according to Finn in the studio, coming in at 3 for only the third time in his T20 career. For one ball. He was out, caught, by Motie with one of the most incredible catches ever seen. Out of position on the third man boundary in being in too far, he somehow pouched the ball, one-handed and not just above his head but behind him too. Even Buttler couldn't help smiling at how unlucky he was to be a victim of such brilliance. Bethell came in at 4 to produce an innings of maturity in front of his family and friends in front of his "home" crowd. This wasn't just about crash, bang, wallop. This was about angles, finding gaps behind square, a la Duckett for 58* off 36. A real talent. The day, however, belonged to Salt though in pacing his 103* off 53 balls to take us home with 3.1 overs to spare.
An excellent win. The area to address is that balance of the side. We do not have a second spinner in the way that other top sides do. We have "fill ins" be that Livingstone (2-0-21-1), Mousley (1-0-7-0 and really couldn't understand why he wasn't given a second over given that his first ball was a full bunger that was duly dispatched for 6) with neither Bethell or Jacks thrown the ball. Curran appears to have been find out by the analysts - just 6 wickets in his last 9 T20Is bowling spells and going at almost 10 an over in that time. He's also failed to take a wicket in 6 of his last 7 ODI spells.
Overall, though, a good platform to build on. Next one, somewhat unusually given its proximity, is tonight.
Good job Curran reads Charlton Life. He's just bowled a maiden!
Seriously impressive spell by Mousley. I'm still wondering why he only bowled one over yesterday (for 7 of which 6 came off the first ball of his over). He has figures of 1-15 off 3 overs with 8 of those runs coming off edges to the boundary.
Buttler has just received the Archer stare for a shocking bit of fielding by the England captain. It looked like Buttler was trying to stop the ball with his pads and then realised he wasn't wearing any so rapidly got out of the way of it.
Seriously impressive spell by Mousley. I'm still wondering why he only bowled one over yesterday (for 7 of which 6 came off the first ball of his over). He has figures of 1-15 off 3 overs with 8 of those runs coming off edges to the boundary.
Seriously impressive spell by Mousley. I'm still wondering why he only bowled one over yesterday (for 7 of which 6 came off the first ball of his over). He has figures of 1-15 off 3 overs with 8 of those runs coming off edges to the boundary.
Hero to zero - following his hundred yesterday, Salt is out first ball so Buttler, more or less, ends up opening. He was out first ball yesterday so should hit a ton today!
Hero to zero - following his hundred yesterday, Salt is out first ball so Buttler, more or less, ends up opening. He was out first ball yesterday so should hit a ton today!
Very close to doing just that. Buttler out for 83 off just 45 balls.
Comments
Oh and Mark Wood used to bowl at up to 95mph off his shortened run up which goes to demonstrate how pitiful your attempts at belittling the pace that the likes of Garner, Holding, Roberts etc could produce in the JPL. He changed it on the advice of Michael Holding - not to make him quicker but to put less stress on his body.
All to defend the Hundred. A competition lambasted by current and former pros in the game that do not have a financial interest in promoting it, because it stops any other form of cricket being played by the best players in August. I get that you have never warmed to county cricket but, for someone that allegedly supports England, it really is bizarre that you refuse to recognise that and keep trying to go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent to justify your reasoning.
This is just some of the damage the Hundred is doing to the game:
No county cricket in August = no spin bowlers being produced
No players allowed to play 50 over cricket in August = players not learning how to adapt from "crash, bang, wallop" cricket to pacing an innings and the resulting exit in the group stage of a WC and winning just 7 of the last 20 matches
No Test cricket in August = denying school children the opportunity to see international cricket, including the Ashes (for the first time ever in its history over here), when they are off from school
First, I didn't call Holding, Roberts and Garner, "Tommy Trundlers". I used that as a sweeping generalisation of the lower-paced, stifled bowling seen every week throughout the country. If anyone thinks that JPL bowlers bowled at the same pace as they did in first class cricket, I will have to disagree with them.
Second, I didn't defend The Hundred. You brought it up (again); I merely compared it to the JPL. I think it bares a very good comparison, as do T20s, 50-over over cricket and many other formats. Some may think that the Sunday afternoon stroll-about was the pinnacle of domestic cricket; or that it was merely on par with some of the other competitions. I happen to think it was a very poor standard. And, I guess, if I am wrong, there will be a grounswell of opinion strong enough to bring it back.
Third, I haven't tried to "go down rabbit holes and off at a tangent". I simply stated that Sunday afternoon, 40-over, limited run up cricket was poor quality, even though it could be fun to watch. Again, others might think it's one of the greatest forms of the sport and they're absolutely at liberty to think that - I just wouldn't agree.
Fourth, "Just like your claim that the West Indies were the only side to win the WC". I never made that claim!
And the John Player League on the TV on a Sunday was one of the staple diet of cricket in England. Imagine seeing the modern day equivalent equivalent of Joel Garner and Ian Botham bowling at Gordon Greenidge and Barry Richards. We could have had the 50 over comp at the start of the season, as you say and post that, the CC from Tuesday to Friday and a re-vamped Vitality Blast on a Sunday utilising the same money and free-to-air coverage and financial support that the Hundred was afforded.
But that wouldn't have given the ECB what they wanted for themselves. We are now witnessing the start of the ultimate reduction to 8/10 First Class counties and owned by foreign entities too. This has already started with counties being given second tier status in the Women's game even though they have a better infrastructure and have produced more players than their Test/Hundred hosting counterparts.
My point about the JPL is that it gave the opportunity for our players to play against the best in the world. As the county championship did too. In August when wickets are best and spinners come to the fore.
However, I am glad that you have confirmed that, in not now defending the Hundred, you finally accept that the competition has damaged the prospects of our international team. At least we are agreed on that.
I wasn't defending The Hundred in my comments earlier. That is not to say I wouldn't be happy to do so in future.
I guess you were mistaken when you thought you read that I claimed the West Indies were the only side to win the WC. Easily done.
But I do reiterate that I am so pleased that, in not seeking to defend the Hundred, you accept, not just my opinion but that of the England batting coach and the England opening batsman, that the Hundred is responsible for our poor form in ODIs.
Perhaps we can leave it at that?
I think leaving it at that is a good idea, because I am sure others may well become as bored as I have when correcting your gainsaying of things you think I have said.
Alzarri Joseph suspended for 2 games for his row with Shai Hope
But thank you, nevertheless, once again, for not disputing that the Hundred has damaged our ODI team. That's all we could ask of you in the circumstances.
-
We got off to a superb start with Saqib taking all three wickets and the Windies reduced to 18-3. The batters came and went still firing with all guns left, right and centre even at 69-5. Our fragility with the ball was exposed when Topley went off injured and in anger (threatened to throw a chair on his way off) after bowling 2.4 overs. Rashid was his usual good self but even he wasn't immune to being hit for maximums as the Windies just kept coming. Motie, coming in at 10, was incredible in hitting 33 off just balls to take the total to 182-9 but should a tail-ender really be doing that to us?
That target of 183 was going to be a record chase at Bridgetown but Salt, from the off, was superb and controlled. Jacks' shot selection once again let him down in trying to slog sweep a ball that simply wasn't there to play that shot to. As talented as he undoubtedly is, he is the one that is now vulnerable for a returning Brook or even Duckett coming in at the top to offer that left/right combo. Which brings us to Buttler, according to Finn in the studio, coming in at 3 for only the third time in his T20 career. For one ball. He was out, caught, by Motie with one of the most incredible catches ever seen. Out of position on the third man boundary in being in too far, he somehow pouched the ball, one-handed and not just above his head but behind him too. Even Buttler couldn't help smiling at how unlucky he was to be a victim of such brilliance. Bethell came in at 4 to produce an innings of maturity in front of his family and friends in front of his "home" crowd. This wasn't just about crash, bang, wallop. This was about angles, finding gaps behind square, a la Duckett for 58* off 36. A real talent. The day, however, belonged to Salt though in pacing his 103* off 53 balls to take us home with 3.1 overs to spare.
An excellent win. The area to address is that balance of the side. We do not have a second spinner in the way that other top sides do. We have "fill ins" be that Livingstone (2-0-21-1), Mousley (1-0-7-0 and really couldn't understand why he wasn't given a second over given that his first ball was a full bunger that was duly dispatched for 6) with neither Bethell or Jacks thrown the ball. Curran appears to have been find out by the analysts - just 6 wickets in his last 9 T20Is bowling spells and going at almost 10 an over in that time. He's also failed to take a wicket in 6 of his last 7 ODI spells.
Overall, though, a good platform to build on. Next one, somewhat unusually given its proximity, is tonight.
54-3 off 8
Better bowling today but, there again, this wicket is offering plenty at the moment to the bowlers
Massive pressure on Jacks to deliver now.
130-3 (12.4)