English Country "Franchises" - pick your teams

[GIMH]

Yorkshire is already made up of 4 counties. No need to go further than that. It is already a 'franchise'.

A big county, powerful, successful county =/= a little, unsuccessful one.

3 in each group doesnt take into account the counties it includes.

By all means have a Northern group, but Yorkshire must be on its own and seperate.

Lancashire is spread over 5 counties; Lancashire itself, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Cheshire & Merseyside

 

[Pothas]

Imagine the County Championship were condensed (as it undoubtedly should be but never will be) into 6 regional teams.

The teams can be drawn as follows:

London - Surrey, Middlesex, Essex
Home Counties - Hants, Kent, Sussex
West / Wales - Gloucs, Glamorgan, Somerset
South Midlands - Worcs, Warks, Northants
North Midlands - Derbys, Leics, Notts
North - Yorks, Lancs, Durham

No picking anyone who is in the current England squad or overseas players - my purpose is to illustrate how much more competitive county cricket would be if this were the case.

What would your teams be for 4 day matches? I'll post mine in due course.

ugh I don't us want to play with Sussex.

 

[rivera213]

Wow that's a terrible side, you have a biffer who can't buy a run at 4, a part time spinner who can hold a bat at 5, and a bowling alrounder at 6. The one thing the south east can do is have a decent batting line-up.
Plus that bowling line up is abysmal.

That "biffer" (whatever the **** that means) is regarded by many in the game to be a possible England player in the not too distant future.

Treadwell and Napier are supposed to be the other way round in the line-up.

Treadwell, while not great, is getting better by year. He's an honest enough cricketer and his averages will continue to go in the right direction.

What's wrong with having a bowling allrounder @ 6, England have 1.

The bowling line-up isn't abysmal (I take it you've seen them all bowl...), they are young and inexperienced. They wont be great to start with but I'd rather a bunch of young hopefuls in my team than a bunch of late-20's to early 30's hacks.

You must have the talent spotting ability worse than my Nan. Jeez, I wouldn't mind but too many people on here talk **** without even having seen a player! Laughable.

* Robbie Joseph plays for Kent. Sorry, I had a squad originally, then rushed to get the XI before the Arsenal kick-off.

 

[TT Boy]

That "biffer" (whatever the **** that means) is regarded by many in the game to be a possible England player in the not too distant future.

Treadwell and Napier are supposed to be the other way round in the line-up.

Treadwell, while not great, is getting better by year. He's an honest enough cricketer and his averages will continue to go in the right direction.

What's wrong with having a bowling allrounder @ 6, England have 1.

The bowling line-up isn't abysmal (I take it you've seen them all bowl...), they are young and inexperienced. They wont be great to start with but I'd rather a bunch of young hopefuls in my team than a bunch of late-20's to early 30's hacks.

You must have the talent spotting ability worse than my Nan. Jeez, I wouldn't mind but too many people on here talk **** without even having seen a player! Laughable.

* Robbie Joseph plays for Kent. Sorry, I had a squad originally, then rushed to get the XI before the Arsenal kick-off.

About two years ago. No one now is calling for his selection and it was for 20/20 and ODI cricket, this is four day cricket.

And I've seen all of those bowlers in action and Dav is right, they are ****. So much for 'young' English talent as well, two of them are South African and Robbie Joseph (27) is from the West Indies.

 

[superkingdave]

That "biffer" (whatever the **** that means) is regarded by many in the game to be a possible England player in the not too distant future.

Treadwell and Napier are supposed to be the other way round in the line-up.

Treadwell, while not great, is getting better by year. He's an honest enough cricketer and his averages will continue to go in the right direction.

What's wrong with having a bowling allrounder @ 6, England have 1.

The bowling line-up isn't abysmal (I take it you've seen them all bowl...), they are young and inexperienced. They wont be great to start with but I'd rather a bunch of young hopefuls in my team than a bunch of late-20's to early 30's hacks.

You must have the talent spotting ability worse than my Nan. Jeez, I wouldn't mind but too many people on here talk **** without even having seen a player! Laughable.

* Robbie Joseph plays for Kent. Sorry, I had a squad originally, then rushed to get the XI before the Arsenal kick-off.

Benning has been terrible for the past two years, i think he's scored about 2 fifties in that time,if Surrey weren't so terrible i dare say he wouldn't be playing (indeed he's only been playing about half the games in the last 2 years)

It doesn't really matter if Tredwell and Napier are the other way round, it's still number 5 and 6. There is a reason Essex & Kent have Napier and Tredwell batting at number 8 or even 9 sometimes. Tredwell averages 22 after 73 FC matches, he averaged 22 last year as well....he averages over 40 with the ball (he averaged nearly 50 last year). Napier averages barely 30, is no certainty to make the Essex FC side and certainly wouldn't bat at 5.

I have seen quite a lot of Dernbach and Joseph and they are poor and as noted above, Joseph is hardly a youngster anymore. Whilst I have seen Meaker and Chambers bowl and wasn't impressed, I'm willing to reserve judgement on them for the moment, but the fact that Meaker can't get in Surrey's side say a fair amount imo.

It's also worth noting that all 4 of these sides are in the second division

To fix that side i would have Eoin Morgan at 4, either Pettini/Malan/Dexter at 5, move Foster up to 6 and have possibly have Napier at 7, the bowling would have Jordan and Finn in. If you really want a crap spinner who can bat a bit I mean Chris Schofield would be a better option than Tredwell

Something like

Key*
Denly
Ramprakash
Morgan
Malan
Foster
Schofield
Napier
Jordan
Murtagh
Finn

 

[rivera213]

Benning has been terrible for the past two years, i think he's scored about 2 fifties in that time,if Surrey weren't so terrible i dare say he wouldn't be playing (indeed he's only been playing about half the games in the last 2 years)

It doesn't really matter if Tredwell and Napier are the other way round, it's still number 5 and 6. There is a reason Essex & Kent have Napier and Tredwell batting at number 8 or even 9 sometimes. Tredwell averages 22 after 73 FC matches, he averaged 22 last year as well....he averages over 40 with the ball (he averaged nearly 50 last year). Napier averages barely 30, is no certainty to make the Essex FC side and certainly wouldn't bat at 5.

I have seen quite a lot of Dernbach and Joseph and they are poor and as noted above, Joseph is hardly a youngster anymore. Whilst I have seen Meaker and Chambers bowl and wasn't impressed, I'm willing to reserve judgement on them for the moment, but the fact that Meaker can't get in Surrey's side say a fair amount imo.

It's also worth noting that all 4 of these sides are in the second division

They are 4 poor counties. You're not going to come up with even a half-decent team. Whichever 11 players you pick, the team will finish rock bottom of a 6-team league. I think I would get into this team!

I'd much rather young players be given a chance (I'd probably put Malan in for Tredwell having said that since he's a young player and drop Napier to 6). At least that'd be something good to come out of it.

With the batting friendly wickets nowadays, you almost need a bowling allrounder at 6. Durham is a nice strip but most other places the bat is favoured.

Chambers has bowled well so far this year. 9 wickets @ 25.88, SR of 44 when Essex's grounds aren't exactly bowling paradises isn't bad.

Take out all the players involved in the England set-up, Kolpaks & foreigners and you're left with some poor players overall. You can't polish a turd.

 

[rivera213]

To fix that side i would have Eoin Morgan at 4, either Pettini/Malan/Dexter at 5, move Foster up to 6 and have possibly have Napier at 7, the bowling would have Jordan and Finn in. If you really want a crap spinner who can bat a bit I mean Chris Schofield would be a better option than Tredwell

Something like

Key*
Denly
Ramprakash
Morgan
Malan
Foster
Schofield
Napier
Jordan
Murtagh
Finn

Morgan isn't too great either, Foster isn't good enough to bat at 6, Schofield sucks equally as bad as Tredwell, Murtagh isn't great.

You just can't get a good team from the 4 counties comprising London. Do you want a game?

* Before your edit I mentioned I'd probably put Malan @ 5 (replacing Tredwell), Napier down to 6.

 

[Jarquis]

The team I listed was bad by any stretch, but not as bad as some of the lol.

 

[wpdavid]

I used to think that 6 was too few and that 8 or 9 would be about right. Looking at some of the sides listed, 6 now looks too many. All very depressing.

 

[Pothas]

Think that is shows that we much more is needed than simply reducing the number of counties, can do that all we want but the quality can still remain poor. England needs to produce better cricketers and that means more than just making it harder to get into county cricket, it means more young people playing, better coaching and all the rest of it.

 

[Goughy]

Think that is shows that we much more is needed than simply reducing the number of counties, can do that all we want but the quality can still remain poor. England needs to produce better cricketers and that means more than just making it harder to get into county cricket, it means more young people playing, better coaching and all the rest of it.

UIMM, participation levels are higher than 15 years ago.

Better coaching certainly helps when talent has been identified. Coaching is needed to develop players of ability. However, I think English cricket suffers from over-coaching in club and school cricket at a low standard and age.

English cricket will not succeed because of the attitudes that run through it from the very top to the bottom.

Unfortunately this is not going to change anyime soon.

 

[Uppercut]

It doesn't even begin to tell how big an improvement cutting down the number of counties would make. Condensing quality would mean more games against other better quality sides and those players that did play would get better. Noone can tell how much by though, really.

 

[zaremba]

ugh I don't us want to play with Sussex.

This is the point.

And with all due respect if my team played home matches at the Toilet Bowl, they wouldn't be my home team any more and I wouldn't support them.

There are few enough county cricket fans already, without alienating half of them by getting rid of our beloved teams and replacing them with synthetic franchises, particularly where the franchise's home ground will be some distance away.

 

[Uppercut]

This is the point.

And with all due respect if my team played home matches at the Toilet Bowl, they wouldn't be my home team any more and I wouldn't support them.

There are few enough county cricket fans already, without alienating half of them by getting rid of our beloved teams and replacing them with synthetic franchises, particularly where the franchise's home ground will be some distance away.

Well ideally the home matches would be split between the counties that made up the franchise.

But yes, there's plenty of reasons why it won't happen.

 

[zaremba]

Well ideally the home matches would be split between the counties that made up the franchise.

Even if this happened, it would kill off county grounds such as Hove.

There would be an overall reduction in the number of games due to the reduced number of counties. That reduced number of games would in turn be split between, say, 3 main bases - eg Southampton, Canterbury, Hove. So Hove would host something like 1 or 2 county championship games per year. On that basis, operating a cricket ground at Hove would be financially unsustainable. And the effect on the outgrounds - in Sussex's case Eastbourne, Horsham, Arundel - would be terminal.

Maybe I'm a reactionary old stick-in-the-mud, but I don't care. My county team has 170 years of rich history (albeit that it's not been marked by much success until recent times), I love the place, and I wouldn't want to throw it away in favour of a tacky IPL-clone model of franchises.

For these reasons, Penguinissimo, extremely highly though I rate very much of what you write, I think you're dead wrong about this one.

 

[Pothas]

UIMM, participation levels are higher than 15 years ago.

Better coaching certainly helps when talent has been identified. Coaching is needed to develop players of ability. However, I think English cricket suffers from over-coaching in club and school cricket at a low standard and age.

English cricket will not succeed because of the attitudes that run through it from the very top to the bottom.

Unfortunately this is not going to change anyime soon.

I don't know much about the structure of coaching in England and you may well be right. My only experience was no cricket in my primary school, a bit in my secondary school and then played cricket (very badly) for my local team. Had a very brief few weeks trial thing for Hampshire North when I was about 10 but unfortunately was awful at cricket an am probably worse now, so that never got very far.

My point really was that less people playing county cricket will not necesarilly leas to better quality, if we don't produce decent players in the first place. Admit it works both ways but it is certainly no quick fix

 

[Uppercut]

Even if this happened, it would kill off county grounds such as Hove.

There would be an overall reduction in the number of games due to the reduced number of counties. That reduced number of games would in turn be split between, say, 3 main bases - eg Southampton, Canterbury, Hove. So Hove would host something like 1 or 2 county championship games per year. On that basis, operating a cricket ground at Hove would be financially unsustainable. And the effect on the outgrounds - in Sussex's case Eastbourne, Horsham, Arundel - would be terminal.

Maybe I'm a reactionary old stick-in-the-mud, but I don't care. My county team has 170 years of rich history (albeit that it's not been marked by much success until recent times), I love the place, and I wouldn't want to throw it away in favour of a tacky IPL-clone model of franchises.

For these reasons, Penguinissimo, extremely highly though I rate very much of what you write, I think you're dead wrong about this one.

170 years of history's gotta start somewhere.

There is actually precedent. In 2003 Wales decided there was no way they could support nine professional rugby clubs and condensed them into four provincially, mirroring the more financially viable and successful Irish model. Fans of the clubs weren't bloody happy at all, but they got over it pretty quick. The four clubs get plenty of support and the standard of Welsh rugby has very much improved even in that short space of time. It's safe to say it's been a pretty unqualified success.

Feel free to object, but with all due respect you're part of a dying breed of big CC fan. There's pros and cons to everything and the tiny minority that feels a strong affiliation with their county that couldn't be replicated after a merger are a group whose interests will regretfully have to be ignored. You can't make a decision like this without pissing someone off, but i still firmly believe it would be for the greater good of English cricket to cut down the number of teams in the division- maybe not exactly as Penguissimo suggests, but along those lines.

 

[Pothas]

Even if this happened, it would kill off county grounds such as Hove.

There would be an overall reduction in the number of games due to the reduced number of counties. That reduced number of games would in turn be split between, say, 3 main bases - eg Southampton, Canterbury, Hove. So Hove would host something like 1 or 2 county championship games per year. On that basis, operating a cricket ground at Hove would be financially unsustainable. And the effect on the outgrounds - in Sussex's case Eastbourne, Horsham, Arundel - would be terminal.

Maybe I'm a reactionary old stick-in-the-mud, but I don't care. My county team has 170 years of rich history (albeit that it's not been marked by much success until recent times), I love the place, and I wouldn't want to throw it away in favour of a tacky IPL-clone model of franchises.

For these reasons, Penguinissimo, extremely highly though I rate very much of what you write, I think you're dead wrong about this one.

This is pretty much my attitude. Would also be a terrible shame to loose small grounds, been to Arundel a couple of times and its great. Last year Hampshire played in Basingstoke for the first time since the Rose bowl opened and I hope that continues.

 

[superkingdave]

170 years of history's gotta start somewhere.

There is actually precedent. In 2003 Wales decided there was no way they could support nine professional rugby clubs and condensed them into four provincially, mirroring the more financially viable and successful Irish model. Fans of the clubs weren't bloody happy at all, but they got over it pretty quick. The four clubs get plenty of support and the standard of Welsh rugby has very much improved even in that short space of time. It's safe to say it's been a pretty unqualified success.

Feel free to object, but with all due respect you're part of a dying breed of big CC fan. There's pros and cons to everything and the tiny minority that feels a strong affiliation with their county that couldn't be replicated after a merger are a group whose interests will regretfully have to be ignored. You can't make a decision like this without pissing someone off, but i still firmly believe it would be for the greater good of English cricket to cut down the number of teams in the division- maybe not exactly as Penguissimo suggests, but along those lines.

if there has to be a reduction in the number of sides, probably has to be in line with population centres but still where possible keeping traditional names. (definately not arbitrary names)

At least a team in each of these cities

Leeds
Manchester
Birmingham
Nottingham
London(2)
Cardiff

There was a reason those counties (apart from Glamorgan) were the test venues.

Probably have 3 more and make 10 sides, I think that would be right.

So next 3 biggest cities that are unrepresented (the likes of Bradford, Sheffield, Liverpool, Coventry are already assimilated within current counties)

Bristol
Leicester
Sunderland

This would give us

Yorkshire
Durham
Lancashire
Warwickshire
Leicestershire
Gloucestershire
Glamorgan
Surrey
Middlesex
Nottinghamshire

maybe swap Hampshire in for Leicestershire given how little they currently contribute.

 

[wpdavid]

UIMM, participation levels are higher than 15 years ago.

Better coaching certainly helps when talent has been identified. Coaching is needed to develop players of ability. However, I think English cricket suffers from over-coaching in club and school cricket at a low standard and age.

English cricket will not succeed because of the attitudes that run through it from the very top to the bottom.

Unfortunately this is not going to change anytime soon.

My gut reaction is to completely agree with that, but I'm interested in what you consider these duff attitudes to be. fwiw I would highlight:
- short termism
- parochialism
- laziness
- incompetence / cluelessness

Apart from that they're OK.