theegyptian
International Vice-Captain
Now this is a more familiar Essex.
Err he's played 3 Tests and scored some runs.Stoneman keeps on scoring runs in CC but failed in international cricket so I think there is a problem in the system rather than the player
Rajendra Chandrika scored some runs tooErr he's played 3 Tests and scored some runs.
Slurrey last year, Hampshite a few months ago and now Nottinghamshite.Meanwhile Jennings' technique went to **** and he hasn't scored any runs for Durham either. And in other **** the ECB news
Jennings set for Nottinghamshire move as Durham's woes deepen - ESPNcricinfo
Go **** yourselves ECB. ****ing disgrace to sport never mind cricket.
Oh and Mike Newell, go **** yourself as well, along with Nottingham$hite
It's quite something, isn't it?Sangakkara in the runs again - he's had a half decent summer!
9 matches, 1360 runs @ 123.64, 8 centuries.Sangakkara in the runs again - he's had a half decent summer!
Durham are not exactly a 'division two club''. They have not been relegated since Hussey got them up in '05 - no other team boasts their record since the two tiers were introduced. The only way Durham can be relegated is if the ECB buggers them up the arse.Good young english players have been moving from struggling div 2 clubs to div 1 clubs for a while now. Hardly a new phenomenon.
Transfer fees are a secondary issue. It's the two divisions that it boils down to. Players know there best chance of playing for England is first division cricket. Means all the talent gradually filters to div 1.
I'd consider restructuring the county championship. Either two or three divisions done on geography/random with playoffs etc. That way clubs like Worcestershire can keep hold of Kohler-Cadmore, Leicestershire - Broad, James Taylor, Northants - Willey, Stone etc
Players would still move for money but there wouldn't be the necessity to move that the young english players are feeling now because each league would be of the same standing, and every county would have the chance of winning the championship.
The two division thing was with the best of intentions - To get a higher standard of cricket and more competitive cricket over the whole season. It worked but (a presumably unintended consequence is that) it's also made the disparity between the top clubs and smallest all the more, and meant that some teams at the bottom it's virtually impossible for them to be successful.
It's not ideal that some of the selectors are directors of cricket, however it's hard to find someone without a conflict of interest in cricket. Botham - Durham chairman, media and commercial roles. Collingwood - Durham player and England coach.
I'm not disagreeing with you but cricket is ran through cronyism. You can look at the very top, the ICC and the Indian hierarchy. Cricket is basically ran by an exclusive bunch of old farts in suits. There is nothing that is accountable or democratic.Being a Durham player and England coach doesn't create a conflict of interest. He's trying to get the best of out players, there's not really any power or influence there.
Compare that to an England selector. Then you have huge responsibility and influence. The bias there has been painfully obvious - whether perceived or real. The Cook era with the Essex mafia. Before that it was a number of Sussex men involved. It's very difficult for anyone to fully avoid that because they'll have some ties with one of the counties. But to be running operations at a county and a selector as well is an absolute joke - only the champions of cronyism the ECB could actually conceive of the idea that it is acceptable.