« Performance of the Day - Durham County Cricket Club | Main | Bill Morris enters the race to be ECB Chair »
Texas Hold'em or Nets?
Recently The Trumpet was er... trumpeting that cricketers don't practise their skills sufficiently (unlike, say, snooker players or golfers). This led to some disagreement and a reference to Justin Langer's view that his Somerset colleagues are on a treadmill in county cricket with no time available to hone their talents. Now The Trumpet hasn't always seen eye to eye with the diminutive opener, but his opinion is one for which I have the utmost respect, so a little digging was required.
Here is the workload on a young Somerset player like James Hildreth - you decide if it's so onerous that little practice is possible.
October to March - No play due to Winter. Ambitious players head to Grade Cricket in Aus to play weekends and practise weekdays.
April - Including practice matches, 17 days scheduled cricket of 30.
May - Excluding the Tourists' match, 17 days scheduled cricket of 31.
June - 16 days scheduled cricket of 30.
July - 16 days scheduled cricket of 31.
August - 15 days scheduled cricket of 31.
September - 12 days scheduled cricket of 30.
Had Somerset done better in the FP Trophy or the Twenty20, they would have had a handful more days cricket, but not many. Of course there will be time spent travelling, but England is a small island, not a continent. Naturally, everyone deserves down-time (although there's plenty of that during a match, not to mention rain delays). I also accept that fast bowlers may be physically restricted in practising flat out, although they can practise variations.
But no time to practise on the County Cricket treadmill? I have a one word answer to that - begins with "B" and ends with "ollocks".
August 19, 2007 in General musings | Permalink | 
Stumble It!
Comments
When you caompare the workload of an Australian first class cricketer you can see what JL is on about. Here is Justin's schedule for his first season post international retirement.
October - 11 days scheduled cricket (2 Four day matches, 3 one dayers)
November - 10 (2 four day, 2 one dayers)
Decamber - 11 (2 four day, 2 one day, 1 Twenty/20)
January - 8 (1 four day, 1 one day, 3 Twenty/20)
February - 10 (2 four day, 2 one day)
March - 4 (1 four day)
For the mathematically challenged here are the totals for the season.
54 days cricket an Australian season (10 four day, 10 one day, 4 Twenty/20)
Your English example plays 93 days. That's 42% more (if my maths is correct) cricket in the same time frame.
Justin may have a point Toots. Australian players have a whole five weeks more per season to work on their game. The last two decades of contests between our countries would suggest that something is amiss in the English domestic game. JL's only trying to help. Maybe someone should heed is advice.
Posted by: nesta | 20 Aug 2007 05:43:33
I think you are both right in your way (as is JL). Players do have time practice in England. Would it be better to have more, which is essentially JL's point? Yes it would. And pretty much everyone in County cricket (other than the chairmen and Sky) think that the Pro40 should be scrapped.
Posted by: lee | 20 Aug 2007 08:08:48
The Pro40 should definitely go.
Nesta - I'm sure that they do have more time to practise in Aus, but State cricket (until recently, I believe) was played by amateurs, or men with other obligations at minimum - the English county game is (and has been for generations) professional.
The structure of the English game does need looking at, but any reduction in playing would have to be matched by an increase in practice - my concern is that if they aren't using the practice time effectively now, what good will it do to give them more?
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 20 Aug 2007 08:33:17
Recently is a slippery word. It's over a quarter century since first class players went from semi-professional to full pro. Still you'd think that professionals would work harder than their lesser paid counterparts.
I'm not disagreeing Toots, perhaps England need to finally let Boycs off the leash. He'd have them working every waking minute.
Is it that English cricketers have it too easy and therefore don't feel the need to be obsessive in their skill and fitness training?
PLaces for contracts are fierce Downunder and maybe that's why the players work their arses off. Andrew Symonds has been training with the Brisbane Broncos rugby league squad all through the winter so he stays is in peak condition. No one instructed him too do it nor does he get paid. Other players are also putting in the extra yards. Their livelihoods depend on it.
Posted by: nesta | 20 Aug 2007 10:37:28
Nesta - There's that expression used in England "Too clever by half". It captures the disdain reserved for those seen to be trying too hard (Boycott for one). It's not laziness being praised, more a kind of sneer for the "anti-lazy" - Faldo got it in golf and Gooch in cricket. It tends to come with a lack of sense of humour (at least when those players are playing), which is more or less a capital crime here. That doesn't help.
The strange thing is that we don't feel that resentment towards people from other countries who do the hard yards day in day out. It's my honest belief that Symonds would be applauded for this (since he's an Aussie) but if an English guy did it, eyebrows would be raised - what's he up to etc.
I rather thought the days of stockbrokering in the morning before an afternoon century in the Sheffield Shield were gone, but I still read of Hilfenhaus the brickie etc. Wouldn't happen here - more's the pity really.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 20 Aug 2007 11:38:30
Hilfy was laying bricks because at 22 he still couldn't get a run. Second XI players only get about 20% of what the First XI get. Keep them hungry. Keep the keen.
Now that Tait hasn't recovered for the Twenty/20 World cup, Hilfy is in. Just a year ago he was a bricklayer now he is an international cricketer. I cannot think of a more rapid ascent since Ian Healy. And he turned out to be one of our all-time best.
This resentment towards people who work hard baffles me. I just don't get it. Boycott is treated with the upmost respect when he is down here. We see him as an Ashes legend and a very tough competitor. He has earned OUR respect and if truth be known few English cricketers have since he retired.
Posted by: nesta | 20 Aug 2007 12:07:07
Don't think your comments are quite fair, Tooting. What we Brits don't like is people who ostentatiously work hard - we applaud the appearance of effortless success but most of us have the sense to know it needs sweat behind the scenes. Boycott has always been unpopular because he behaves as if he knows everything and the rest know nothing - something else that isn't liked here.
Posted by: Scuderi | 20 Aug 2007 13:31:00
Scuderi (Joe?) - There are multiple layers to personality of Boycott and good reason for some people to fall out with him, but his appetite for work was one of them.
Many Brits who work hard to achieve sporting success are sneered at for being boring (Mansell, Hill, Faldo, Gooch possibly Nasser) whilst cheerful chappie fair to middling like Gazza, Venables, Tuffers are lauded.
Of course, I exaggerate to make my point and there are counter-examples, but there's something in it.
Nesta - Saw the news about Tait - your Simon Jones I fear - and looking forward to Hilfenhaus.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 20 Aug 2007 14:00:34
Mouth - perhaps they *were* boring :) Know what you mean though, Nasser for example seems to have been branded as a killjoy and 'too intense'.
Maybe the problem with our cricketers isn't the time spent on training but the type of training they do?
Posted by: Scuderi | 20 Aug 2007 14:16:21
Scuderi - I suspect it's a bit of both.
Boycott has railed against the likes of Botham trying to hit every ball for six in the nets saying what good does that do for a bowler - he's right. Bowlers don't help themselves by just jogging in and bowling big no balls. We heard Nasser's view of Sree Santh's approach to practice at the Trent Bridge Test.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 20 Aug 2007 14:24:32
Apart from the thrill of watching Tait and Lee bowling in tandem, it's a blessing he is not fit. I don't think you can afford to bowl two or three wides an over in Twenty/20. The team will be stronger without him in this format. And Hilfy will be better for the experience.
Posted by: nesta | 20 Aug 2007 14:25:26
Tait would be a great sight in Twenty20, but wasted. Sixes over Third man are fun the first time, but then you think of the relative requirements of batter and bowler for that to happen and despair.
Posted by: The Tooting Trumpet | 20 Aug 2007 20:22:38
The comments to this entry are closed.
