After the ball was over

[chickenfeet]

Euphoria is good but what now for England? I think today's series win was fantastic but there is reason to believe that this is the proverbial "house built on sand". England picked the same twelve for the first four matches of this series then when Jones got hurt couldn't bring themselves to play Tremlett. That rather suggests that they intended to play the same XI regardless in the earlier games. In other words, there was no plan B. Indeed the names suggested as a Jones replacement included some has beens so has been that one wondered at times whether they were going to call Trueman out of retirement.

The trouble is, there is no depth. Flintoff is unique and irreplaceable but him aside there are at best seven batsmen in the frame for the five specialist spots and three of those (Bell, Collingwood and Key) aren't entirely convincing. The fixture wicket keeper is just that, a fixture. At least there are alternatives in that department if the selectors would face up to the horrible truth that one can't play test cricket with a wicket keeper who can't catch. The bowling is in worse shape than the batting. Only two of the specialist bowlers (Harmison and Jones) are entirely convincing but there really isn't anyone pressing for Giles' or Hoggard's places so one can't blame the selectors for playing them.

Is it possible in the present structure of the English game to achieve a situation where there is the depth in the player base that, say, Arsenal has? Once upon a time one had the luxury of less international cricket and more first class games which gave more players more chance to impress as potential test players and an environment in which an out of form test player could play himself back to form. That's no longer the case. Maybe the answer is to have a parallel 'A' team series? It would have been fascinating to watch Australia 'A' play a series against England 'A' and see which young players impressed. I'm willing to bet it would have drawn much bigger crowds than county games too. Another possibility would be to have the tourists play more 4 day games against 'select' XIs as used once to be the case. There's not much point in watching the Australians vs Randomshire if most of Randomshire's players either aren't England qualified or are has beens.

Comments

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Re A-teams: unfortunately, England and Australia are the two countries that have taken this concept least seriously (though it's amusing that England A has resurfaced in the past two years, largely, it seems, because the countries the National Academy visited demanded that that was how their opponents should be styled). When England A, or the Academy, visit Australia, they're usually given state second elevens to play against. When A-teams come here, the counties rest half their sides. And if they get to play a combined eleven, it's made up of players from the counties who happen not to be playing that week. But your idea is a good one, and not unlike what happened in New Zealand in 2003-04, where they scheduled overlapping Test and A-team series so that fringe players could be swapped between the two.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

It's a shame because the 'A' team concept has been very successful in rugby and surely in orgopoliticofinancial terms rugby and cricket are similar in that internatiuonals are everything and nobody really gives a wet slap about the rest of it.

The key, ultimately, is to make sure that the money that the England test and ODI side makes goes to supporting the development of future England players and not to paying fat salaries to marginal overseas players. Again the parallels with rugby are hugely relevant both in terms of what needs to be done and the Horlicks the English authorities are making of it.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

nobody really gives a wet slap about the rest of it.

You offer me the Ashes or the County Championship, and I'll take the Championship every time. OK, I'm not a representative sample, as I don't really support England, but the point is that I can remember England winning the Ashes several times in my lifetime. I've never seen Lancashire win anything but one-day trophies. I want the Championship. Even if my first thought on hearing we'd signed Dominic Cork was "but do I want it that much?"

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I've supported Lancashire all my life but if the way to win is to draft in Murali for a few games here and Kartik for a few games there, I'm not sure i really care. When even overseas players (Lloyd, Engineer for example) had some attachment to the county that was one thing. Now it's a few weeks at a time. If Lancashire revenues supported that it would be OK but in my view it's quite wrong that the England set up should be financing it.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Hey, we pay for our fancy furriners with hard graft staging pop concerts. And Murali is One of Us, however short his visits. The dressing-room loved him, which wasn't the case with, for instance, Ganguly.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Also, it only works if the ECB target the money the England team make more tightly. There need to be 50 or so players centrally contracted and much less money flowing directly to the counties. that way the ECB would decide who played in A team games or other games against the tourists.