Hmm..That is a poorly written article. The underlying premise may be correct but the writing is shallow and doesn't exactly portray a deep understanding of the nuances. It has the depth of a school book report.
"This dismal sequence was, apparently, "caused" by the following factors: structure of county cricket...sticking with a failing core of senior players for too long, introducing too many new players, being insufficiently hard-working and professional, being insufficiently joyful and amateur ..."
All those things could possibly be correct, they may not be but that isnt the point. The fact is they are not contradictory. You can stick with a failing core of players while introducing too many new players. A team can be insufficiently hardworking while at other times being insufficiently joyful, it depends on the right outlook at the right time and context. Without looking deeper into it, we dont know one way or the other. What we do know is that applying flawed logic doesnt help anyone.
And as for "The same "cause" had been invoked to "explain" two opposite effects, which is, obviously, logically impossible." I have never heard such tosh. The same cause can frequently have opposite effects when the effects are separated by a period of time. We see it all the time. Do we often frequently falsely attribute causes to effects? Of course we do but that fact carries no weight unless we can show specifically why a certain causes and effects are inaccurately partnered. This article is long on fluff and short on anything interesting, including evidence.
The discussion isnt without merit and I agree with the basic premise - It is an area I have a great interest in. However, these type of articles dont help anyone as they are flawed and do disservice to good work in this area.
