Sri Lanka 2007: Fraser and Brenkley at the Test - Galle, dayfour
Rain saves England. Or at least ensured they took this Test into a fifth day. The tourists were 102 for one when a flurry of rain forced the players off just before lunch. This was followed by a mighty storm. So a day to bat, the last of the series with Alastair Cook and, especially, Ian Bell looking neatly controlled. But England's performance has gone down badly as embodied by our last three contributors yesterday, whose disaffection bordered on anger. There seems to be a general concern about Kolpak players in county cricket, Gus, and perhaps we can do more to help ourselves. Although I think we both have more sympathy we were both fairly unforgiving in our pieces in this morning's paper.
England batted well today. Why couldn't they have done it yesterday when it really counted. It is amazing how approaches and momentum can change overnight. All it takes is for one side - Sri Lanka - to take their foot off the gas believing England will capitulate again and for England to show a lot more fight. A draw will not disguise the fact that Sri Lanka have been a much better side than England here.
Kolpak? What can be done? It's a nightmare. Soon Aussies and kiwis will be able to work freely in Europe too. Basically it will be a free for all where a player can play for the country he chooses or the country who want him. It's ridiculous - Michael Vaughan's side slogging its socks off to raise money to give to counties who then spend it on developing non English players. Happy Christmas Michael the trip to Sri Lanka must feel worthwhile.
In the end it is down to the counties but, sadly, most put their own ineterests in front of England's. Should more money be held back for the end of season bonuses. The trouble is when bonuses turn to penalties lawyers get involved. Good luck.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 21 December 2007 at 10:05 AM
A mes of our own making. Nobody did anything about it when England were winning, the matter seems more urgent now they're losing a bit. It's not too late but it soon will be. The importance of counties developing their own players cannot be overstated.
Talking of Michael V, I'm a great advocate of his - natural leader, Ashes winning captain and all that - but he played another loose shot to get out today. Will the vultures soon be gathering or can he rise above it all? You mentioned that Collingwood said he isn't ready but then Michael wasn't ready when he became the chosen one and look what happened.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 21 December 2007 at 10:11 AM
Vaughan played a tired shot. I think the last three weeks have worn him out. It has been tough, especially for the captain.
I don't think Vaughan's position as captain is under pressure yet but he needs to win in New Zealand, against a side that seem in disarray. Vaughan is still a good captain, although he does tend to tinker a lot. It is okay doing this with high quality bowlers ie the Ashes, but harder when they are not on top of their games. Constant field changing only adds to the confusion. Vaughan should continue captaining England, I'm not sure Colly is ready yet. He is not as outwardly as ambitious as Vaughan. he would be a different captain in many ways.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 21 December 2007 at 10:17 AM
Agreed (are we agreeing too much?) However, I seem to recall Sri Lanka being in disarray at the start of this series and look what has happened. Wondering aloud, this, no more, but Vaughan's knee has seemed in need of constant attention these past few weeks. I do hope it can get him through to the 2009 Ashes. England are not as bad as some of our correspondents think, not as good as they think they are. There is an awful lot still to do, as they recognise.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 21 December 2007 at 10:23 AM
I felt Sri Lanka were there for the taking at the start of the series but they have responded superbly. I suppose here, in a harsher, less confortable environment than at home, they are used to delaing with issues and putting them to the back of their minds when they are on the cricket ground.
I was worried about Vaughan's knee earlier in te tour but he seems to be moving better now. There is always a tendency to over react as the banner here 'England, hang your heads in shame' highlights. Every time an England international side loses it is made to sound like the end of the world, and we arrogantly assume that we should be one of the best teams about, whatever the sport.
Posted by: Angus Frasera | 21 December 2007 at 10:30 AM
It is not arrogant to assume that England SHOULD be one of the best teams in cricket. We have a comparative advantage over many nations in terms of population, financial resources, supporters, facilities etc. What is arrogant is to assume that we can stick with a failed system, run by timid, greedy administrators, and then assume as a right that we ARE best just because we are England and we have a long cricketing history and traditions. This is like assuming that we were the forerunners of the Industrial Revolution, and so our products were always going to be the best. We did not invest in transforming our outdated industries, lost markets, goodwill, and technological edge - and now have little or none of our former manufacturing skills or capacity. The same thing has happened in cricket, where we cling to an outdated format out of sentimentality (and greed in the case of some counties), fail to recognize that we can't subsidize failure and incompetence, bring in cheaper foreign goods -and then wonder why we are not developing enough dynamic young cricketers as a system. I understand that Ashley Giles at Warwickshire is trying not to use Kolpaks and to develop English talent (about time too for Warwickshire!), and if this is the case, I can only praise him. But will he be allowed time and money for this attempt to produce results? And will other counties follow him?
Posted by: nj | 21 December 2007 at 03:38 PM
It would be interesting to look at how the "successful" countries have been organized, and at their county/state structures. Has the Australian system changed in the last 20 years? I suspect that it has not. After all, Australia have consistently produced fairly strong teams (with the exception of the brief period when Packer decimated the top ranks), and an unhappy period before the emergence of the current crop, when the West Indies were destroying everyone for fun. I suspect that the English game would benefit from cutting the number of counties, and forcing the survivors to use fewer Kolpaks and assorted mercenaries by genuinely stringent financial measures. The ECB is the ultimate paymaster, and if it made Kolpaks expensive, the counties simply would have to look elsewhere. But, the root of the problem is why Kolpaks are needed/acceptable in the first place. Why are the counties not producing players of equivalent, or better, quality? I should add that legally it is nonsense to treat sport as equivalent to a regular "trade", and to apply the idea of "restraint of trade" to a team/governing body that refuses to employ a foreigner. If the person in question is NOT qualified to play for England by birth/residency, then it could, and should, be argued that they are not qualified for a job within a national sporting set-up aimed at producing, among other things, a national team. Failure to meet such standards of qualification is, effectively, a lack of the requisite qualifications for the career in question. This would require a more aggressive and proactive approach to classifying cricket as a national sport, but could, and I think, should be pursued as a legal option. Think of the problems within English soccer because of our flood of foreign players - and the wretched failure of topflight clubs to produce enough technically skilled, mature young players. Do we want to see cricket in the same state? the day is not far away when we shall see it - and how then will we redress the balance?
Posted by: basilbrush | 21 December 2007 at 03:52 PM
In the last 10-15 years there has only been one successful country - Australia - and there are a myriad of reasons why they continue to dominate the game.
How many counties should there be 15, 12? Should we be playing regional cricket? Many people were unhappy when Durham became the 18th county but look what they are doing. They had a wonderful year in 2007 and have provided Engand with several players. If they had not been admitted would we have had Harmison or Collingwood.
Regional cricket for me is a complete no no. I took great pride in playing for Middlesex because of its history etc and I would like to think members of the current side do too. Would I feel great pride in playing for South/South East - no way. It would just be a vehicle for playing for England.
If regional cricket did come in, with three counties amalgamating in to one side, teams would only play five home matches. Say Gloucs, Glam and Somerset were one region, Taunton may host one first-class game a year. What would be the point of keeping a ground like that open for half a dozen days of serious cricket each summer. If the ground went, the centre for cricket in the region of Somerset, Devon and Cornwall would disappear and with it could be the desire to play cricket in the south east.
The only area where there are too many counties is probably the midlands - Northants, Leics, Derby, Notts, Warwicks, Worcs.
The trouble with basilbrush's comments is that his 'foreigners' might want to play for England. Saqlain Mushtaq, Stuart Law, Lance Klusener - I think - are all available to play for England, so they are no longer 'foreigners.' In many ways they are the same as Robin Smith, Allan Lamb, Norman Cowans, Owais Shah etc they were all born outside England. What can the ECB do when this is the case?
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 22 December 2007 at 04:21 AM
Sure, regions lack the sentimental charge of counties for those who played under the old system - but for new players, this would not be a problem. Why not say 12 "counties", in two leagues of 6. I agree that the Midlands is the obvious area for too many teams - and I would start by cutting them from 6 to three. I don't think any objective viewer of the game would consider Leicester. Northants, Worcs,Derby to have been particularly distinguished as counties, although Warks and Notts have achieved more. The point in all this is that we have too many financially strapped counties, without the resources to devote to coaching and training, who depend on handouts from the ECB to keep afloat. Unless the ECB is willing to devote more revenue to making them financially viable, perhaps through an endowment system, it is hard to see what these counties really contribute. If it comes to names, I am sure something could be devised, and that with time people would accept it. If regional cricket came in, you could call sides Wessex, Sussex, Essex etc without too much loss of pride, and with a good deal of continuity. As for the foreigners issue, you can solve that by a more rigorous qualification period, linked to a firm commitment that players who have performed for another country at ANY level (under-19 etc) would never be able to qualify for England. This would remove the potential absurdity of e.g. Klusener playing for England. These are all details though, which matter little compared to the big picture, which is too many mediocre players in mediocre teams. England need a supporting structure geared to producing hard, dedicated professionals, with good technique, and a fierce determination to succeed. The present system is not producing enough in the way of such players, and has not done so for years. Kolpaks are simply the finishing blow. Or does anyone feel the present system needs just a little bit of work?
Posted by: basilbrush | 22 December 2007 at 08:14 AM