***Official*** New Zealand Domestic Season 2015/16

[Flem274*]

If you make it so that the shield is a non-event and focus on kids you'll never see a Richardson, Elliott, Obrien or Bond again.

A youth focus sounds ***y but only restricts your options in an already limited pool. Plus anything NZC touches turns to mud aka the bowling academy.

Take the hard road and make the shield worth something. ND, otago and CD didn't fluke all their reos. They let players develop at their own pace, drafted in outsiders very selectively and always had good mentors available if the players wanted them. Canterbury are adopting the same in house approach and while their player cupboard is bare sometimes, they're winning titles and now have 3 nz reps.

We need the 66 shield players, the A squad and a youth program that works. Not just one of the above

 

[Immenso]

The Plunket Shield is my second favourite crickets after tests. So, I'm going to be biased.

But in terms of results for money spent. You could argue that since the provincial contracts came in, and then given a few years for the academy lost generation gaping hole to work through the system. That NZC is now in a golden period with a good international team in all formats, filled from a wide 'squad'.

Causation, correlation?

This is the healthiest I've ever seen nz cricket, and I put it down to the provincial contracting and pitch WOFs.

Do you know back in the 80s, our glory years, how shallow NZs depth pool was?

I'd love a good A program though. But not at the expense of what we've got. It's the gaping hole in the set. I'm sure money from sacrificing a test for the Chappell-Hadlees will be used for just such a thing .....

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm not advocating doing away with the Plunket Shield, even if others are. What I'm saying is, I'm not phased if the best 2 XIs of players in the country never play in it. Run an NZ A programme in conjunction with it, so the best next level cricketers are involved in that, then can return to play LO/T20. Or have those guys involved in matches where they're suiting the needs of the national side - ie playing on raggy dust bowls to improve their playing of spin, against a Dukes if an English series is coming up etc.

There's no shame in giving less credence to that competition. I remember the announcement of the Plunket Shield coming back and the oh joy! that rang around the cricket community. Then no one turned up. Radio Sport didn't cover it. It died a real quick death. So at least use the carcass for medical purposes.

Then get a proper marketing team to give the T20 a name that isn't a ****ty rip off of the Big Bash, dress it up properly, help with player signings to give it credence, run it off the back of the Big Bash if you need to get those overseas guys a place to go afterwards, and sell it to the highest bidder - not necessarily SKY. The blueprint is right across the Tasman waiting to be flogged if we want to do it properly.

 

[Dan]

Keep in mind that Australia pissed around with ultra-youth-centric talent development pathways a few years ago, and it correlated with every experienced fringe Shield player ****ing off because they weren't being picked for the 2nds due to the "EVERYONE UNDER 23" rule. And it failed. Badly.

 

[Athlai]

No ones give a **** about domestic cricket but any alternative is far worse.

 

[African Monkey]

I take it crowds at the Plunket games usually never reach double digits? Queenstown match had like 3 people at best at the game sleeping on the banks while Papps and Murdoch pissed around getting inside edges every delivery

Lol I counted 27 at the Canterbury v Auckland game.

 

[Immenso]

No ones give a **** about domestic cricket but any alternative is far worse.

I do. Far more meaningful than JAMODIs. Just that JAMODIs are televised that I watch some/most of them.

Admittedly once you remove blackcaps, injuries, and kolpaks it becomes a bit thin. But there are occasionally some rounds early in season with blackcaps available and before injury decimation that would be televisable. (To the anoraks)

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I feel like Nicholls technique is getting overmemed. It's not even that ugly.

 

[Kippax]

If you make it so that the shield is a non-event and focus on kids you'll never see a Richardson, Elliott, Obrien or Bond again.

Not entirely convinced those four in particular would say that, if we asked them off the record what they thought of the PS. I think those four were unusually mature and might've happily taken a grant from NZC and gone overseas to seek out their own game-improving coaches and experiences. NZC sending a 28yo Rob Nicol to county cricket after his two South African tests, or a 28yo Brownlie on a two-week crash course in India to improve his play of spin, those were really naive wastes of money though. Like trying to reshape a plate of jelly that set years ago.

 

[Athlai]

I do. Far more meaningful than JAMODIs. Just that JAMODIs are televised that I watch some/most of them.

Admittedly once you remove blackcaps, injuries, and kolpaks it becomes a bit thin. But there are occasionally some rounds early in season with blackcaps available and before injury decimation that would be televisable. (To the anoraks)

More saying that about viewership, most cricket fans see it as important.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Am strongly against a youth-centric approach for NZ cricket.

My main reason is that most men aren't even fully physically mature until their mid 20s. There might be a skinny 18 year old medium fast bowler who puts it on the dot but without much pace so isn't threatening. But 6 years later the kid might have put on some old man muscle and now gets it up to 150. This is where Ryan Harris and Shane Bond came from.

 

[Kippax]

Can remember Bond saying it was the fact he was lazy and naive when he was younger that he thinks led to the injury run he had though. It certainly wouldn't hurt to aim to get a NZ U19 cricketer looking as worldly and well-travelled as a 19-year-old tennis player or golfer does, imo.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Am strongly against a youth-centric approach for NZ cricket.

My main reason is that most men aren't even fully physically mature until their mid 20s. There might be a skinny 18 year old medium fast bowler who puts it on the dot but without much pace so isn't threatening. But 6 years later the kid might have put on some old man muscle and now gets it up to 150. This is where Ryan Harris and Shane Bond came from.

yeah age group sport in general heavily favours kids with a birthday close to the age cutoff because of the sheer physical advantage

 

[NZTailender]

Why are we worried about FC Domestic ground fan numbers during working weekdays?

 

[Immenso]

Why are we worried about FC Domestic ground fan numbers during working weekdays?

We're not.

Discussion is about hypothetical allocation of resources for money losing subsidised cricket formats out of NZCs ICC earnings.

 

[straw man]

First FC century for Tim Seifert. His T20/ListA numbers aren't great so far but I seem to remember from Kippax's U19 vids that he plays a lot of shots - potential NZ limited overs keeper?

 

[Kippax]

The continued rise of Nicholls today suggests all those with a strong bottom hand and/or a strong youth hockey background won't be denied by Cribbage's gatekeepers of the game's aesthetics anymore, Seifert and Leopard included.

 

[Kippax]

McAndrew trying that full leg stump yorker to Latham I always want tried.

 

[Howsie]

First FC century for Tim Seifert. His T20/ListA numbers aren't great so far but I seem to remember from Kippax's U19 vids that he plays a lot of shots - potential NZ limited overs keeper?

Short answer, yes. Kid will end up playing a lot of cricket for NZ down the road. Massive talent just needs to be refined somewhat.

 

[straw man]

McAndrew trying that full leg stump yorker to Latham I always want tried.

Assume you saw De Grandhomme ended up bowling him behind his legs as well, though from an inswinger (to the LH). Strange to see Latham walking round his crease like that.