Anything you think we can pin it on? Change in the way kids have been coached? or just luck? Something to do with the way the academy has worked with bowlers? I know that all the promising young bowlers of the early 2000's actions were changed dramatically to give us a generation of early 130 bowlers, I presume this has stoppedKinda funny to see Howsie backing Wagner given how much he hates him now.
But yeah, in response to the OP, NZ really did strike it lucky and get a freakish crop of cricketers coming through in the 2008-2010 period. Chuck in Milne, Latham, Henry - whom we only found out about a couple years later - and JimmyGS, and it's probably fair to unironically label it NZ cricket's golden generation. Incredibly timely too, given how much interest in the national team had declined during the dark years in between 2007 and 2013.
Yeah the academy is now generally regarded as being a tragic mistep that cost NZ a generation of fast bowlers. Regarding the current group, I do tend to put a significant part of it down to luck. You only have to look at the step-down in quality from our last couple of U19 sides to see that we definitely can't rely on a continuous stream of Southee/Boult/KW class players. There also seem to be a lot more talented bowlers coming through than quality batsmen. Maybe a lot of kids inspired by Bond?Anything you think we can pin it on? Change in the way kids have been coached? or just luck? Something to do with the way the academy has worked with bowlers? I know that all the promising young bowlers of the early 2000's actions were changed dramatically to give us a generation of early 130 bowlers, I presume this has stopped
Cricket is reviving a bit amongst 8 and 9 year olds if the scene I saw at our club nets three weeks ago is anything to judge by - there were kids all over the show. Too many to have a net so they put some stumps out and the kids had to bowl and try to hit them. Which they loved.Incredibly timely too, given how much interest in the national team had declined during the dark years in between 2007 and 2013.
Yeah, the World Cup really seems to have inspired a generation, which is great news - and again very timely. That report that showed a near 50% decline in participation in cricket at schools between 2000 and 2014 was pretty depressing. Hopefully there's a big turnaround next summer.Cricket is reviving a bit amongst 8 and 9 year olds if the scene I saw at our club nets three weeks ago is anything to judge by - there were kids all over the show. Too many to have a net so they put some stumps out and the kids had to bowl and try to hit them. Which they loved.
The current crop of 19/20 year olds were in their high school years about the same time I was, and cricket was so, so unpopular. The Blackcaps were rubbish and participation levels were accordingly dropping. Most schools (apart from the all-boys schools who had 50 teams of different colour coding) were struggling to turn out two regular sides whereas in previous years they had three or four. Smaller pool of players, weaker competition, less quality players.Anything you think we can pin it on? Change in the way kids have been coached? or just luck? Something to do with the way the academy has worked with bowlers? I know that all the promising young bowlers of the early 2000's actions were changed dramatically to give us a generation of early 130 bowlers, I presume this has stopped
I saw that report. It makes you wonder whether cricket shifting from free to air, to Sky had much of an impact? I guess there are also societal changes too which have impacted on the time people have for cricket.Yeah, the World Cup really seems to have inspired a generation, which is great news - and again very timely. That report that showed a near 50% decline in participation in cricket at schools between 2000 and 2014 was pretty depressing. Hopefully there's a big turnaround next summer.
Definitely possible. I don't exactly remember when cricket stopped being available on free to air TV. But I don't think it's a coincidence that participation numbers in NZ and England have been declining while participation in Australia remains as strong as ever.I saw that report. It makes you wonder whether cricket shifting from free to air, to Sky had much of an impact? I guess there are also societal changes to which have impacted on the time people have for cricket.
Well it is holidays - but still seeing kids playand played in school playgrounds.
Yeah this was definitely going to be his thing if he kept playing; he was absolutely prime for a Styrising or Astleing. I can't help but think he may have got better (even if not more) opportunities if he couldn't bowl; Wellington used his "allrounder' status as excuse to stick him at 8 and pick hacks in the top three all the time.Yeah could see Boam turning into a batsman that occasionally bowls of he kept on. Makes me hate Wellington cricket.![]()
IIRC it was 1998/99. So that would roughly coincide with the beginning of the decline in numbers. In the 1990's I remember it was a bit of a feast at times, with TV3 showing the World Series games in Australia. The Australians are certainly the envy of NZ and the UK in respect to their laws protecting free to air sport. I'm not sure if it would be feasible to maintain in NZ and keep cricket semi-professional.Definitely possible. I don't exactly remember when cricket stopped being available on free to air TV. But I don't think it's a coincidence that participation numbers in NZ and England have been declining while participation in Australia remains as strong as ever.
We should follow Australia in protecting free-to-air sport - TelegraphAnti-siphoning laws in Australia regulate the media companies' access to significant sporting events. In 1992, when the country experienced growth in paid-subscription media, the Parliament of Australia enacted the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 that gave free-to-air broadcasters essentially first refusal to certain sporting event broadcasting rights. The anti-siphoning list is a list of events, the televising of which should, in the opinion of the relevant Minister, be available free to the general public…
[
Cricket
Each test match involving the senior Australian representative team played in Australia.
Each test match between the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia and the senior English representative team, played in Australia or the United Kingdom.
Each one day cricket match involving the senior Australian representative team played in Australia.
Each Twenty20 cricket match involving the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia played in Australia.
Each match in the semi‑finals and the final of the International Cricket Council One Day International World Cup Cricket World Cup.
Each match of the International Cricket Council One Day International World Cup involving the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia.
The final of the International Cricket Council Twenty20 World Cup.
Each match of the International Cricket Council Twenty20 World Cup involving the senior Australian representative team selected by Cricket Australia.
Boam was a hack player himself of lateral movement tbh.Wellington used his "allrounder' status as excuse to stick him at 8 and pick hacks in the top three all the time.
yeah siddons' flounce at boam's retirement in the media was bemusing since if you play someone for half a season only and even then use them outside their usual role then at best they're going to shift provinces and if they cbf moving provinces then they'll just leave.Yeah this was definitely going to be his thing if he kept playing; he was absolutely prime for a Styrising or Astleing. I can't help but think he may have got better (even if not more) opportunities if he couldn't bowl; Wellington used his "allrounder' status as excuse to stick him at 8 and pick hacks in the top three all the time.