*Official* New Zealand domestic season 2022/23

[RossTaylorsBox]

What's being disputed here? That some people have greater sporting ability than others? I think most people would recognise this is the case from the time they go through primary school. Somewhat scarily they are even starting to use genetic profiles in talent ID for some athletic traits.

Genetic profiles to identify talents in elite endurance athletes and professional football players

The genetic profile that is needed to identify talents has been studied extensively in recent years. The main objective of this investigation was to approach, for the first time, the study of genetic variants in several polygenic profiles and their role in elite endurance and professional...

journals.plos.org

No, I'm disputing that these genes are simply passed down like animals (seriously what a braindead analogy) and so the sons of famous cricketers are naturally better at cricket. Rather than the more obvious reason that being a cricket guy affords you a much better understanding of the environment needed to train and become an elite sportsman than some random kid off the street.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

They're not 'sporting genes' per se, but certainly genetics have a part to play in sporting performance.

OK but the specific genes Baz gave his kid contribute way less than what his dad taught him, knowing how and where to train, being able to get quality coaching, knowing how the NZC system works, etc.

Edit: I'd agree that genes hold a lot of importance if the sport was something like running or swimming, but cricket is far more complex than just having physical capabilities.

 

[ataraxia]

Chu six dismissals out of six wickets on his return to Otago

 

[Fuller Pilch]

OK but the specific genes Baz gave his kid contribute way less than what his dad taught him, knowing how and where to train, being able to get quality coaching, knowing how the NZC system works, etc.

Edit: I'd agree that genes hold a lot of importance if the sport was something like running or swimming, but cricket is far more complex than just having physical capabilities.

It almost as much mental as physical.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

At the top tier, I'd argue it's mostly mental.

 

[Flem274*]

Lots have the talent, few the head.

Plenty of club guys could be FC if they trained as hard as they booze for example.

 

[thierry henry]

OK but the specific genes Baz gave his kid contribute way less than what his dad taught him, knowing how and where to train, being able to get quality coaching, knowing how the NZC system works, etc.

Edit: I'd agree that genes hold a lot of importance if the sport was something like running or swimming, but cricket is far more complex than just having physical capabilities.

Yes and no. I absolutely agree that almost anyone will reach a basic level of proficiency in a sport if it’s drilled into them from a young age. However I don’t necessarily think that something like bowling fast, or even having the hand-eye co-ordination necessary to become say a FC level batsman or fielder, is something that a majority of people are capable of. Like, going right back to primary school there were always kids who were way more naturally talented than someone like me despite playing way less, being less interested in the game or having less resources available to them than me. There’s some combination of athleticism and coordination required to play top level cricket which many if not most people won’t ever reach.

 

[thierry henry]

Like obviously there’s a whole spectrum in terms of how hard and smart cricketers practice, but I know so many cricket nerds like me who have played the game (and just been sporty people in general) their whole lives, but there’s no way they could ever consistently play 130kph bowling in a controlled way. There’s no way, no matter how hard they practiced, they could ever smash 4s and 6s consistently against high level bowling. Like obviously I accept that with rigorous training we could all improve a lot, but top level cricket involves a level of physical prowess I really doubt most of us can get to. Unless the rest of you have played to a high standard I’m sort of surprised if you think you could.

This is not to suggest btw that ‘genetics’ are the main reason ‘sons of’ do so well. I wholeheartedly believe it’s mostly how they’re brought up plus maybe a pinch of favouritism along the way which separates them from the pack. It’s just that ‘the pack’ of potential FC cricketers, while far smaller than it ideally would be, would never contain all or even most cricketers cos physical limitations, lack of ability, or genetics if you want to call it that.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I can’t believe we’re talking about handed down genetics making for a better player and David White’s son is included under this banner. I’m hoping that it isn’t his Dad’s severe mediocrity that’s handed down in that case.

 

[Flem274*]

I'm woeful. Have definitely improved a bit having nets against much better players. Will never play fc or even be acceptable st decent club level.

Genetics play their part but I think anyone who thinks our system efficiently raises the cream to the top is kidding themselves. A big sign of inefficiency is the same families appearing year after year.

Genetics are also very inefficient. Horse breeding is a big pile of confirmation bias and tbh, a numbers game, and I know a lot more about animal traits being passed down than the people in this thread who will push that barrow.

 

[thierry henry]

I'm woeful. Have definitely improved a bit having nets against much better players. Will never play fc or even be acceptable st decent club level.

Genetics play their part but I think anyone who thinks our system efficiently raises the cream to the top is kidding themselves. A big sign of inefficiency is the same families appearing year after year.

Genetics are also very inefficient. Horse breeding is a big pile of confirmation bias and tbh, a numbers game, and I know a lot more about animal traits being passed down than the people in this thread who will push that barrow.

Yeah basically this, environmental factors pretty much swamp everything else but I still don’t believe for a second that we would all be playing under-19 reps if we were raised like Riley McCullum. The majority of even super keen lifelong cricketers suck way too hard for me to believe that.

 

[_Ed_]

Genetics are also very inefficient. Horse breeding is a big pile of confirmation bias and tbh, a numbers game, and I know a lot more about animal traits being passed down than the people in this thread who will push that barrow.

I thought about attempting to say something insightful on that too, and also gave consideration to a lazy but equally valid 'Snaafi Dancer lol', but ultimately decided against it.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Snaafi Dancer

Googled this and indeed did lol

 

[SteveNZ]

OK but the specific genes Baz gave his kid contribute way less than what his dad taught him, knowing how and where to train, being able to get quality coaching, knowing how the NZC system works, etc.

Edit: I'd agree that genes hold a lot of importance if the sport was something like running or swimming, but cricket is far more complex than just having physical capabilities.

100% the nurture is more important than the nature in terms of performance. Riley McCullum, or any son of a professional cricketer who wishes to pass down the insights, has a significant advantage.

But if his Dad was genetically more pre-determined to be slow twitched, have poor eyesight, high anxiety, slow computation, lung capacity etc then he'd have a harder time of it. And yeah I agree, cricket is much less genetically pre-determined than certainly 100m sprint or swimming. Generics still play a role in every sport, even chess with the genetic coding required to have the intellect to play such a sport.

That doesn't play out in that specific sport, necessarily either. Ryan Fox is a world top 25 golfer who was raised on the mindset of sports performance. He also has pretty fair genetics in an All Black father and a NZ cricketing grandfather that don't hurt.

 

[SteveNZ]

Lots have the talent, few the head.

Plenty of club guys could be FC if they trained as hard as they booze for example.

This is 100% true for any premier club comp I've seen. If I look at Auckland, probably all XI of the best clubs could.

A big sign of inefficiency is the same families appearing year after year.

That's an inefficiency in coaching and good environments. That doesn't exist as much in rugby (although NZRU are doing their best to make sure it does, with their murdering of grass roots structures and failure to police the 1st XV programs). So yeah, the guys who do well are much more likely to be exposed to the 'best' environments like private school 1st XIs, born into a cricketing family or - and this one is less important now than it used to be - strong club structures. Look at my club - I played with I reckon 11-12 guys in a 12-year period that played for NZ. Success bred success because you were facing the best guys in the nets, having the conversations, our coach was a former NZ player, had one of the only indoor nets in Auckland, etc. Sure, some sports that's not as prevalent, but in cricket if you haven't got an abundance of resources, top coaches, facilities and ultimately money, you're churning out players from the same places.

I dunno, of course it'd be better if we were breeding players from a wide range of avenues. But I'm all for bloodlines, as long as they make in on merit...which is certainly another topic.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yes and no. I absolutely agree that almost anyone will reach a basic level of proficiency in a sport if it’s drilled into them from a young age. However I don’t necessarily think that something like bowling fast, or even having the hand-eye co-ordination necessary to become say a FC level batsman or fielder, is something that a majority of people are capable of. Like, going right back to primary school there were always kids who were way more naturally talented than someone like me despite playing way less, being less interested in the game or having less resources available to them than me. There’s some combination of athleticism and coordination required to play top level cricket which many if not most people won’t ever reach.

But if his Dad was genetically more pre-determined to be slow twitched, have poor eyesight, high anxiety, slow computation, lung capacity etc then he'd have a harder time of it. And yeah I agree, cricket is much less genetically pre-determined than certainly 100m sprint or swimming. Generics still play a role in every sport, even chess with the genetic coding required to have the intellect to play such a sport.

I think I broadly agree with you that genetics can make you bad at top-level cricket but it doesn't make you good at it. And certainly not good enough that it becomes your "bloodline".

 

[thierry henry]

Anyway speaking of nurture over nature, nice 100 for Rachin today

If we could just get his Dad to go around the country and net with every young cricketer we might finally achieve equity of opportunity

 

[thierry henry]

I think I broadly agree with you that genetics can make you bad at top-level cricket but it doesn't make you good at it. And certainly not good enough that it becomes your "bloodline".

Yeah I think I can sum it up as - nepo-cricketers have a massive advantage over the rest of the (perhaps surprisingly large) pool of naturally talented cricketers; but I still reckon most humans don’t have the physical capabilities to become top cricketers.

There’s also no doubt a lot of solipsism in the latter belief because I simply refuse to believe that me or most of my cricketing peers ever had the basic raw materials to make a run at higher honours

 

[Fuller Pilch]

So yeah, the guys who do well are much more likely to be exposed to the 'best' environments like private school 1st XIs,

Not necessarily private school 1st XIs, but definitely traditional cricket single *** schools.
It is amazing that co-ed Tawa College produced so many female cricketers (the Kerrs, Devine etc.) but that's an anomaly.

 

[SteveNZ]

Not necessarily private school 1st XIs, but definitely traditional cricket single *** schools.
It is amazing that co-ed Tawa College produced so many female cricketers (the Kerrs, Devine etc.) but that's an anomaly.

Yeah you're right, I worded that wrong - traditional schools.

Tawa is an anomaly, or really Sophie Devine and Rebecca Burns are. The other three (the Kerrs plus Georgia Plimmer) not as much, given the Kerrs had a mother and father who played domestically and a grandfather who played for NZ, and Plimmer played under Robbie Kerr and in that environment.

You could analyse a lot of subsets or 'networks' of cricketers/sportsmen + women who came through like that. Martin/Jeff Crowe, who played in the Grammar 1st XI with Mark Greatbatch, Grant Fox was also in that team, John Graham was the headmaster etc.