The Official Cricket Thread

[Paddington Bear]

Your problem is that it's too complicated for the average English working class youth to understand, lasts too long, allows the draw after five days, is too leisurely and doesn't have much running around.

Snobbish nonsense I'm afraid and betrays no understanding of England, a country you opine on constantly. Cricket has a long heritage in English working class communities, that have produced the vast bulk of amateur players and significant numbers of our best players. Not an original observation but cricket is/was the only sport you'd see played both on the fields of a public school and at a colliery welfare sports ground. Hence why I talk about it's decline and point out the link to the decline of state school cricket. The knock on effect is huge as the stalwarts of most clubs have often been working class blokes with deep roots in their community.

But, to be serious for a moment, competitions like the 100 are targeted at addressing some of this, but it's still too difficult to understand, and, probably because of this, is regarded as elitist. For example, there are 10 ways of getting a batsman out, a player can't be out LBW to a ball pitching outside leg but can be out if it pitches outside off (leg? off?), but, if the ball strikes the pad outside off, he still can't be out. Unless he's not playing a shot (wait, what?).

It's regarded as elitist because the game has shrunk into private schools. This was not always the case. The sport being complicated is only a barrier if you aren't taught it as a kid. People understand complex sports if they have an interest. Essentially people who have no interest in cricket cite that it's complicated, but 5 year olds who catch the bug love it and learn more as they go along. Same principle applies to rugby. They just need to be provided with opportunities to do so.

[JM2K6]

As soon as anyone starts going on about the complexity of sports - especially if they then veer into talking about kids playing video games - I always have a chuckle as I think of the insane complexity of the video games kids like to play. Even simpler mobile games tend to have pretty arcane rulesets.

[Happyhooker]

Cricket's participation issues are well known and the decline in white working class cricket is IMO the biggest existential threat to the sport in this country.

Well versed previously but fundamentally cricket used to be a national sport in a way it just isn't now. Exactly where you'd draw that cut off I don't know - 81 was probably the last time cricket was a truly national moment and since then only football has managed it. Every club that folds is tragic but what's notable is how many that do fold were founded in the 50s or 60s - the old traditional clubs largely soldier on.

Facilities is crucial and the decline of the game in state schools and then selling on their playing fields is a double whammy that is really hard to come back from. The game has gone out of the national consciousness and is hard to coach unless you understand it well, less teachers understand it so fewer schools offer it, etc etc the cycle goes on. Council pitches where they still exist are almost universally disgraceful which just exacerbates this further. We offered our ground FOC to a local comprehensive and a club up the road formally complained to our local cricket board that this would impact their playing numbers so we were asked not to. So many self inflicted wounds.

The issue is wider than race and I suspect in 20 years we'll be talking about the declining numbers of young asian players in the game (this is already observable in Muslim community teams). No easy fixes.

Your problem is that it's too complicated for the average English working class youth to understand, lasts too long, allows the draw after five days, is too leisurely and doesn't have much running around.

Football is just over an hour, easy to understand with lots of running around. Plus, you get to riot and beat up opposition supporters if you lose. or even if you win.

No contest.

But, to be serious for a moment, competitions like the 100 are targeted at addressing some of this, but it's still too difficult to understand, and, probably because of this, is regarded as elitist. For example, there are 10 ways of getting a batsman out, a player can't be out LBW to a ball pitching outside leg but can be out if it pitches outside off (leg? off?), but, if the ball strikes the pad outside off, he still can't be out. Unless he's not playing a shot (wait, what?).

Until you get kids wanting to spend the time to learn the game, you are fighting a losing battle.

If you look at the game in South Africa, there has been a concerted effort to court black kids into the game and this has been done by limiting the number of whites allowed to play in domestic cricket. I'm not up with the current numbers, but it used to be that domestic sides had to have 6 of the eleven black players. This meant that black players were getting a better opportunity to play for the National side, which means that we now have black role models for black youngster to aspire to emulate, which has lead to an explosion of the game's popularity amongst blacks in the country.

Obviously, a player like Kwena Maphaka, who at 15 years of age has been showing great form for the U19, is less likely to have an English grandparent than Dewald Brevis who (I understand from a tweet by Jon Kent) has the ECB taking an interest as a possible England player.

I may be wrong, but I'm inclined to believe that the average black kid is more likely to take an interest in understanding the game than your average bored English kid who is probably wrapped up in his iPhone.*

*Obviously, these are stereotypes and there are probably hundreds of English kid across the country who are prepared to spend the time to study the game.

Others have said it in more length and more politely, but your views on English cricket are palpable bollocks.

[Torquemada 1420]

Cricket's participation issues are well known and the decline in white working class cricket is IMO the biggest existential threat to the sport in this country.

THIS.

Which means it becomes isolated into your typical scene from Midsummer Murders (chosen accordingly..) i.e. white, middle/upper class villages.

Rinkals kinda makes some valid points but from the wrong angles. Modern lifestyles and an instant gratification society were always going to pressurise cricket because it is "too long" for most people. I stopped playing as a kid for that reason and yet I had everything possible going in a working class household to promote my interests:
- my father had been a very good cricketer, basically touching minor county standard (I was crap BTW but that did not stop me enjoying it).
- I loved cricket. During Summer holidays, I would happily watch entire Test matches and go on the occasions I could afford to.
- I had Wisden monthly and could recite records and stats ad infinitum. I did not have any football magazines.
I never really played again bar some mucking about at university (where I had loads of time spare). It's a ****ing challenge and I don't see any easy answers.

[Torquemada 1420]

As soon as anyone starts going on about the complexity of sports - especially if they then veer into talking about kids playing video games - I always have a chuckle as I think of the insane complexity of the video games kids like to play. Even simpler mobile games tend to have pretty arcane rulesets.

Yeah. It's bollox. Whilst it may not be for everyone, I loved the complexities, nuances and stats that make up cricket. Complexity has f**k all to do with the problem. Time, access to facilities, cost and even attitude barriers are the real killers.

[Paddington Bear]

Cricket's participation issues are well known and the decline in white working class cricket is IMO the biggest existential threat to the sport in this country.

THIS.

Which means it becomes isolated into your typical scene from Midsummer Murders (chosen accordingly..) i.e. white, middle/upper class villages.

Rinkals kinda makes some valid points but from the wrong angles. Modern lifestyles and an instant gratification society were always going to pressurise cricket because it is "too long" for most people. I stopped playing as a kid for that reason and yet I had everything possible going in a working class household to promote my interests:
- my father had been a very good cricketer, basically touching minor county standard (I was crap BTW but that did not stop me enjoying it).
- I loved cricket. During Summer holidays, I would happily watch entire Test matches and go on the occasions I could afford to.
- I had Wisden monthly and could recite records and stats ad infinitum. I did not have any football magazines.
I never really played again bar some mucking about at university (where I had loads of time spare). It's a ****ing challenge and I don't see any easy answers.

Certainly an issue but not unique to cricket. Team sports in general are struggling for this reason and the necessity of compromise in a team environment. Also, if you take up say running if you put the effort in you will achieve something 'instagrammable' in the end. If I ran four times a week all year and dieted I'd run a rapid 10k which I can post and demonstrate achievement. I can train all I want for cricket or rugby and we can still get pumped on a Saturday afternoon.

[Torquemada 1420]

Cricket's participation issues are well known and the decline in white working class cricket is IMO the biggest existential threat to the sport in this country.

THIS.

Which means it becomes isolated into your typical scene from Midsummer Murders (chosen accordingly..) i.e. white, middle/upper class villages.

Rinkals kinda makes some valid points but from the wrong angles. Modern lifestyles and an instant gratification society were always going to pressurise cricket because it is "too long" for most people. I stopped playing as a kid for that reason and yet I had everything possible going in a working class household to promote my interests:
- my father had been a very good cricketer, basically touching minor county standard (I was crap BTW but that did not stop me enjoying it).
- I loved cricket. During Summer holidays, I would happily watch entire Test matches and go on the occasions I could afford to.
- I had Wisden monthly and could recite records and stats ad infinitum. I did not have any football magazines.
I never really played again bar some mucking about at university (where I had loads of time spare). It's a ****ing challenge and I don't see any easy answers.

Certainly an issue but not unique to cricket. Team sports in general are struggling for this reason and the necessity of compromise in a team environment. Also, if you take up say running if you put the effort in you will achieve something 'instagrammable' in the end. If I ran four times a week all year and dieted I'd run a rapid 10k which I can post and demonstrate achievement. I can train all I want for cricket or rugby and we can still get pumped on a Saturday afternoon.

Yes, but playing a game of rugby or football takes maybe 3 hours out of your life (if you want to keep it short) for a home game. A cricket match is a day. I don't know about the team bit being a compromise. That's as much an advantage/draw as the reverse, depending on who you are. The team bit is all about that sharing and camaraderie. I never cared about being hammered in a team (as long as everyone was doing his best): that "us against the world" is all part of the experience. That's largely what made rugby unique: skinny b*stards like me could find a place alongside lard arses like, say, lucy and so anyone could get a go. That said, the modern trend of "win at all costs" which is driven by the parents is very likely to turn any kid against a sport eventually.

PS I don't believe you could ever run a rapid 10k

[Paddington Bear]

Yes I accept cricket's issue is exacerbated by length, but equally you can play to a high standard for a much longer period of time which aids participation compared to rugby. So swings and roundabouts.

[inactionman]

I played club cricket in evenings after work, of course at a textbook village standard, but it doesn't need to take a lifetime to complete a game.

Much like I don't need to play 5 sets of tennis.

I appreciate many cricket clubs will have pretty leisurely games that can take the day, but there are alternatives.

[Rinkals]

Obviously, a player like Kwena Maphaka, who at 15 years of age has been showing great form for the U19, is less likely to have an English grandparent than Dewald Brevis who (I understand from a tweet by Jon Kent) has the ECB taking an interest as a possible England player.

I wasn't aware of this, so I went through Jon Kent's twitter feed. He's made one tweet featuring the word "Brevis", and it's this one:



Which is as obvious a joke as you'll ever see, with Swann - not the ECB - joking about checking to see if a player tearing up the U20s is qualified for England, and Kent finding it amusing.

What is wrong with you? Why are you like this?

I am making a point about the likelihood of Maphaka playing for another country.

For context, you should read the rest of my post.

It's partly tongue in cheek, but of course I didn't reckon on your propensity to take every thing I say personally.

[JM2K6]

Obviously, a player like Kwena Maphaka, who at 15 years of age has been showing great form for the U19, is less likely to have an English grandparent than Dewald Brevis who (I understand from a tweet by Jon Kent) has the ECB taking an interest as a possible England player.

I wasn't aware of this, so I went through Jon Kent's twitter feed. He's made one tweet featuring the word "Brevis", and it's this one:



Which is as obvious a joke as you'll ever see, with Swann - not the ECB - joking about checking to see if a player tearing up the U20s is qualified for England, and Kent finding it amusing.

What is wrong with you? Why are you like this?

I am making a point about the likelihood of Maphaka playing for another country.

For context, you should read the rest of my post.

It's partly tongue in cheek, but of course I didn't reckon on your propensity to take every thing I say personally.

There's absolutely no way it's tongue in cheek. It can only be taken at face value, because no-one would know that your comment wasn't truthful in the slightest if they didn't bother checking Twitter like I did. You just did the Rinkals thing again where you make shit up because it makes England and English cricket look bad. It's even in the bit of your post where you claim to be being serious.

Stop bullshitting so much.

[Rinkals]

I wasn't aware of this, so I went through Jon Kent's twitter feed. He's made one tweet featuring the word "Brevis", and it's this one:



Which is as obvious a joke as you'll ever see, with Swann - not the ECB - joking about checking to see if a player tearing up the U20s is qualified for England, and Kent finding it amusing.

What is wrong with you? Why are you like this?

I am making a point about the likelihood of Maphaka playing for another country.

For context, you should read the rest of my post.

It's partly tongue in cheek, but of course I didn't reckon on your propensity to take every thing I say personally.

There's absolutely no way it's tongue in cheek. It can only be taken at face value, because no-one would know that your comment wasn't truthful in the slightest if they didn't bother checking Twitter like I did. You just did the Rinkals thing again where you make shit up because it makes England and English cricket look bad. It's even in the bit of your post where you claim to be being serious.

Stop bullshitting so much.

Of course it is.

I started by making a comment about your average English youth and then I said "But, to be serious for a moment, competitions like the 100 are targeted at addressing some of this,.."

The "But, to be serious for a moment" is a hint that the preceding paragraph was not to be taken seriously.

The latter bit about Maphaka and Brevis was to demonstrate the benefit of having native black South Africans taking up the game. The context of this is Paddington's comments on the decline in English cricket in England and the efforts here to seed the game beyond the narrow confines of the white population in South Africa.

I wasn't expecting you to dissect my post to whip yourself up into a frenzy, but I suppose, in retrospect, I should have. My bad.

[JM2K6]

I am making a point about the likelihood of Maphaka playing for another country.

For context, you should read the rest of my post.

It's partly tongue in cheek, but of course I didn't reckon on your propensity to take every thing I say personally.

There's absolutely no way it's tongue in cheek. It can only be taken at face value, because no-one would know that your comment wasn't truthful in the slightest if they didn't bother checking Twitter like I did. You just did the Rinkals thing again where you make shit up because it makes England and English cricket look bad. It's even in the bit of your post where you claim to be being serious.

Stop bullshitting so much.

Of course it is.

I started by making a comment about your average English youth and then I said "But, to be serious for a moment, competitions like the 100 are targeted at addressing some of this,.."

The "But, to be serious for a moment" is a hint that the preceding paragraph was not to be taken seriously.

The latter bit about Maphaka and Brevis was to demonstrate the benefit of having native black South Africans taking up the game. The context of this is Paddington's comments on the decline in English cricket in England and the efforts here to seed the game beyond the narrow confines of the white population in South Africa.

I wasn't expecting you to dissect my post to whip yourself up into a frenzy, but I suppose, in retrospect, I should have. My bad.

I didn't dissect your post, Rinkals. I saw you make a comment about the ECB apparently looking at poaching a young Saffer. I didn't think it was true. Turns out, it wasn't. Not even slightly. The "context" just proves it was a serious comment, not a joke; I didn't miss the point you were trying to make, but I also didn't miss the fact that you lied again.

Don't lie and not expect to get called out on it, especially with your history when it comes to English cricket.

[Big Nipper]

Obviously, a player like Kwena Maphaka, who at 15 years of age has been showing great form for the U19, is less likely to have an English grandparent than Dewald Brevis who (I understand from a tweet by Jon Kent) has the ECB taking an interest as a possible England player.

I wasn't aware of this, so I went through Jon Kent's twitter feed. He's made one tweet featuring the word "Brevis", and it's this one:



Which is as obvious a joke as you'll ever see, with Swann - not the ECB - joking about checking to see if a player tearing up the U20s is qualified for England, and Kent finding it amusing.

What is wrong with you? Why are you like this?

He is an absolute nutcase, and it stinks up any attempt at a cricket thread. Really wish he would refrain from this shit, but we know he won't

[Enzedder]

Looks like Justin Langer is losing the players and the Board - just too intense for the "she'll be right" Aussies

Four days after being inducted in the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame, Justin Langer's role as national men's coach looks to be in serious jeopardy.

Langer, whose four-year coaching contract expires in June, suggested he wasn't "on edge" about his position amid rumblings he still doesn't have the full support of players or senior management. He expected his future to be sorted following planned talks with Cricket Australia.

But on Monday evening, reports emerged that Langer had been informed he might need to reapply for his job, much to the West Australian's dismay.

Foxsports.com.au reported that Langer reacted angrily when the possibility of him reapplying for the coaching role was raised by CA chief executive Nick Hockley and head of performance Ben Oliver during a heated meeting on Friday morning.

According to the report, Langer is refusing to accept anything less than a full contract renewal, arguing his record warrants another multi-year deal.

The Sydney Morning Herald described Langer's reaction as a "meltdown".

The CA board is reportedly uncertain over Langer's reappointment.

"Justin is contracted as Head Coach through to the middle of this year and we have consistently maintained discussions around the future of the role would commence following the conclusion of the men's Ashes Series," a CA spokesman said.

"We have no comment about those confidential discussions."

Langer took over from Darren Lehmann as Australia's head coach in 2018 following the Cape Town ball-tampering saga.

In 2019, he and newly-elected Test captain Tim Paine helped Australia retain the Ashes in England for the first time in 18 years.

But after losing the Border-Gavaskar Trophy on home soil twice in three years, reports emerged that Langer's intensity was wearing thin with the players.

Leaks emerged from the dressing room about their unhappiness with his coaching style and the cracks remained during horror white-ball tours of the West Indies and Bangladesh last year.

A crisis meeting between CA chiefs and senior players was needed to address the issues between players and coach, sparking suggestions Langer was in danger of not having his contract renewed.

The former Australian Test opener has since taken a step back and delegated more responsibility to his support staff, which has seemingly helped improve the team's performance.

Over the past couple of months, Australia has claimed its maiden T20 World Cup title and comprehensively won a home Ashes series 4-0.

However, Australian Test captain Pat Cummins failed to publicly endorse Langer as coach after retaining the urn.

"I think we'll sit down all together after this series, or whenever his tenure is up and his contract is up for renewal, in a few months we'll visit that then," Cummins said when asked about Langer's position.

"(Langer) has been great. He's certainly still head coach, but I think the environment that he creates not only for the players, but the coaches around him, really empowers them.

"You've seen (batting coach) Michael Di Venuto really take charge of the batting, (assistant coach) Andrew McDonald take charge of the bowling. It's just really good, clear roles for everyone in the team.

"It's in some ways taking a step back and letting the players really dictate the environment they want.

"It worked incredibly well over in the World Cup, and he has huge credit to do with that, and hopefully it continues for this summer. He's been great so far."

[Rinkals]

There's absolutely no way it's tongue in cheek. It can only be taken at face value, because no-one would know that your comment wasn't truthful in the slightest if they didn't bother checking Twitter like I did. You just did the Rinkals thing again where you make shit up because it makes England and English cricket look bad. It's even in the bit of your post where you claim to be being serious.

Stop bullshitting so much.

Of course it is.

I started by making a comment about your average English youth and then I said "But, to be serious for a moment, competitions like the 100 are targeted at addressing some of this,.."

The "But, to be serious for a moment" is a hint that the preceding paragraph was not to be taken seriously.

The latter bit about Maphaka and Brevis was to demonstrate the benefit of having native black South Africans taking up the game. The context of this is Paddington's comments on the decline in English cricket in England and the efforts here to seed the game beyond the narrow confines of the white population in South Africa.

I wasn't expecting you to dissect my post to whip yourself up into a frenzy, but I suppose, in retrospect, I should have. My bad.

I didn't dissect your post, Rinkals. I saw you make a comment about the ECB apparently looking at poaching a young Saffer. I didn't think it was true. Turns out, it wasn't. Not even slightly. The "context" just proves it was a serious comment, not a joke; I didn't miss the point you were trying to make, but I also didn't miss the fact that you lied again.

Don't lie and not expect to get called out on it, especially with your history when it comes to English cricket.

Yes, but it wasn't even a relevant part of the post.

Getting blacks involved in the game is how it is being grown here, and I was pointing to one of the benefits being that they are unlikely to have an English grandfather and the risk of them defecting to England was minimal.

You have to admit that there are a number of South Africans playing for England, Australia and New Zealand and this means that we lose these talents. I don't blame them, of course, obviously they have their careers to think of and the mighty Rand is not going to keep them here.

Whether it was Graeme Swann or the ECB who was delving into whether Brevis had an English grandparent is immaterial for the purposes of my point. Which I thought I'd made in a jocular manner, but apparently not.

[Big Nipper]

Nah, you are just an idiot who deflects when you get called out on your bullshit

[JM2K6]

Whether it was Graeme Swann or the ECB who was delving into whether Brevis had an English grandparent is immaterial for the purposes of my point. Which I thought I'd made in a jocular manner, but apparently not.

You seem to think that making a post about a different point excuses the blatant lie you put in for no reason except to try and make English cricket look bad, hoping that no-one would check.

And for the record, because it's ironic given you're banging on about being 'jocular', Swann wasn't delving into whether Brevis had an English grandparent. He was making a joke based on how good Brevis has been and how England have managed to select players in the past on the grandparent rule. A joke. Which Kent understood, and apparently you didn't. So I'd work on that first before telling anyone else they missed the humour.

[FalseBayFC]

Oh well it looks like England are probably going to benefit from yet another Saffer born and bred in David Bedingham. Top scorer in our domestic competition. He has an English grandparent and seems keen to play. I have no issues with these lads playing for England. Talent follows the money and it provides a brilliant income for the agents and scouts who sit on the sidelines at our kids rugby and cricket matches. Not uncommon to hear a "cor blimey" or a "sacre bleu" followed by frantic scribbling in notebooks.

[handyman]

Oh well it looks like England are probably going to benefit from yet another Saffer born and bred in David Bedingham. Top scorer in our domestic competition. He has an English grandparent and seems keen to play. I have no issues with these lads playing for England. Talent follows the money and it provides a brilliant income for the agents and scouts who sit on the sidelines at our kids rugby and cricket matches. Not uncommon to hear a "cor blimey" or a "sacre bleu" followed by frantic scribbling in notebooks.

Wow, if Bedingham goes, that will be a massive loss.

As you say, can't blame the youngsters. If you look at how some of the sporting bodies are run, I would go asap.

[Paddington Bear]

Went to a charity dinner with Jimmy Anderson and Alastair Cook as guest speakers last night. Both have worked a lot on their speaking and were very engaging, made their views clear enough on the current set up without saying anything that could have been a viral clip.

The ladies' loos were used as overflow for the gents. 150 in attendance and 3 women. Increasingly I think a lot of cricket's problems stem back to this - just how overwhelmingly male it is as a sport. Mums never exposed to it so don't consider it as an activity for their kids, teachers (majority women) don't understand it so don't teach it, you never see a gaggle of teenage girls on the boundary of a colts game like you do on the touchline for comparable football/rugby matches etc etc.

[JM2K6]

Oh well it looks like England are probably going to benefit from yet another Saffer born and bred in David Bedingham. Top scorer in our domestic competition. He has an English grandparent and seems keen to play. I have no issues with these lads playing for England. Talent follows the money and it provides a brilliant income for the agents and scouts who sit on the sidelines at our kids rugby and cricket matches. Not uncommon to hear a "cor blimey" or a "sacre bleu" followed by frantic scribbling in notebooks.

It would be easy to fix this, but if the grandparent rule didn't exist, can SA support a fully professional cricket structure to the extent that SA players wouldn't be tempted to get a proper job? What's the money like in SA sport & cricket in particular?

I have to say I'm a little surprised we've not seen the big money guys take over in SA like we have with cricket in India, football in Europe, and rugby in parts of Europe. You'd get good bang for your buck.

[JM2K6]

Went to a charity dinner with Jimmy Anderson and Alastair Cook as guest speakers last night. Both have worked a lot on their speaking and were very engaging, made their views clear enough on the current set up without saying anything that could have been a viral clip.

The ladies' loos were used as overflow for the gents. 150 in attendance and 3 women. Increasingly I think a lot of cricket's problems stem back to this - just how overwhelmingly male it is as a sport. Mums never exposed to it so don't consider it as an activity for their kids, teachers (majority women) don't understand it so don't teach it, you never see a gaggle of teenage girls on the boundary of a colts game like you do on the touchline for comparable football/rugby matches etc etc.

Women's cricket is basically the only thing with growing amateur participation at the moment, no?

[Torquemada 1420]

Getting blacks involved in the game is how it is being grown here, and I was pointing to one of the benefits being that they are unlikely to have an English grandfather and the risk of them defecting to England was minimal.

How is that even vaguely equivalent to England? Remind me what % of the population of SA is black compared with England?

Also, in SA blacks wanted to play cricket but were specifically prohibited from doing so. Ergo, removing the prohibition fixes the problem. It's far more complex in England where the barriers to entry (real or perceived) that are the fault of the cricket authorities are only a partial component of the problem.

[Paddington Bear]

Went to a charity dinner with Jimmy Anderson and Alastair Cook as guest speakers last night. Both have worked a lot on their speaking and were very engaging, made their views clear enough on the current set up without saying anything that could have been a viral clip.

The ladies' loos were used as overflow for the gents. 150 in attendance and 3 women. Increasingly I think a lot of cricket's problems stem back to this - just how overwhelmingly male it is as a sport. Mums never exposed to it so don't consider it as an activity for their kids, teachers (majority women) don't understand it so don't teach it, you never see a gaggle of teenage girls on the boundary of a colts game like you do on the touchline for comparable football/rugby matches etc etc.

Women's cricket is basically the only thing with growing amateur participation at the moment, no?

From a very low base but yes I think it's crucial.

[Torquemada 1420]

Went to a charity dinner with Jimmy Anderson and Alastair Cook as guest speakers last night. Both have worked a lot on their speaking and were very engaging, made their views clear enough on the current set up without saying anything that could have been a viral clip.

The ladies' loos were used as overflow for the gents. 150 in attendance and 3 women. Increasingly I think a lot of cricket's problems stem back to this - just how overwhelmingly male it is as a sport. Mums never exposed to it so don't consider it as an activity for their kids, teachers (majority women) don't understand it so don't teach it, you never see a gaggle of teenage girls on the boundary of a colts game like you do on the touchline for comparable football/rugby matches etc etc.

I'm not convinced by this. The majority of teachers are women but I have doubts that's the case where it matters i.e. at secondary level........ which is really the level where proper sporting activities used to commence. Also don't know where you are going to watch football matches!!!

Sure, like all sports, female participation could be a lot better BUT that is down to much deeper factors involving the differences in programming** between men and women.
** Not all of which is social.

[Mahoney]

This may be pure bollocks, but my recollection of school & current experience with my sons' groups is that secondary is getting late for starting cricket. The kids who can bat and bowl mostly started younger. There were kids with a good eye for a ball at my school who joined aged 12 with no prior cricket experience and never learnt to bowl or got past playing baseball shots.

[Paddington Bear]

Very much so. 11 is the latest I've seen someone take up cricket and turn into a decent player

[Torquemada 1420]

This may be pure bollocks, but my recollection of school & current experience with my sons' groups is that secondary is getting late for starting cricket. The kids who can bat and bowl mostly started younger. There were kids with a good eye for a ball at my school who joined aged 12 with no prior cricket experience and never learnt to bowl or got past playing baseball shots.

I do not know of any state education authority where cricket was ever regularly played at middle school (or earlier if that's even possible). Any kids who played at that age started at clubs, driven (in both senses) by their parents.

[Rinkals]

Whether it was Graeme Swann or the ECB who was delving into whether Brevis had an English grandparent is immaterial for the purposes of my point. Which I thought I'd made in a jocular manner, but apparently not.

You seem to think that making a post about a different point excuses the blatant lie you put in for no reason except to try and make English cricket look bad, hoping that no-one would check.

And for the record, because it's ironic given you're banging on about being 'jocular', Swann wasn't delving into whether Brevis had an English grandparent. He was making a joke based on how good Brevis has been and how England have managed to select players in the past on the grandparent rule. A joke. Which Kent understood, and apparently you didn't. So I'd work on that first before telling anyone else they missed the humour.

Christ, I really don't know what you are getting so incensed about.

Who cares whether its' Graeme Swann or the ECB, the point I'm making is the same. Unless you are denying that England regularly use South African players?

The point I was TRYING to make is that growing the game in the black population is beneficial because it's unlikely that they would find an English grandparent in their ancestry. I used Brevis and Maphaka to illustrate this.

[Paddington Bear]

Silverwood gone. Hope the door didn't hit him on the way out.

[FalseBayFC]

Oh well it looks like England are probably going to benefit from yet another Saffer born and bred in David Bedingham. Top scorer in our domestic competition. He has an English grandparent and seems keen to play. I have no issues with these lads playing for England. Talent follows the money and it provides a brilliant income for the agents and scouts who sit on the sidelines at our kids rugby and cricket matches. Not uncommon to hear a "cor blimey" or a "sacre bleu" followed by frantic scribbling in notebooks.

It would be easy to fix this, but if the grandparent rule didn't exist, can SA support a fully professional cricket structure to the extent that SA players wouldn't be tempted to get a proper job? What's the money like in SA sport & cricket in particular?

I have to say I'm a little surprised we've not seen the big money guys take over in SA like we have with cricket in India, football in Europe, and rugby in parts of Europe. You'd get good bang for your buck.

I often have a fairly childish kneejerk reaction to the issue of pro sportsmen moving abroad. Sport is one area which is supposed to be played on a level playing field. Pro sports which is all sports now is clearly not. The bigger the financial investment the better the results. This means that the rich countries can buy medals at the Olympics and countries like South Africa which has concentrated wealth in certain demographics is able to be competitive against the big guns and flatten minnows like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe who are further down the food chain.

Its not just about Olympic medals either. The South African domestic rugby player base is annually decimated by clubs from Europe, Japan and increasingly the USA. We'll never be able to compete with the stronger currencies. This is a double edged sword. It weakens our domestic game but allows for a much bigger pool of well paid players in competitive leagues who are eligible for the Boks. Esterhuizen, Green, Kolbe etc are earning millions and allowing space for up and comers in the Currie Cup and URC.

The change in eligibility from 3-5 years does a lot to eliminate the project players issue. I think the grandparent rule is fair,. Its going to become less of an issue because immigration from rugby playing countries to SA has declined radically over the last couple of years. I'm very grateful for the opportunities that our youngsters get to earn a living playing cricket on the country circuit or playing rugby in France/Ireland/UK. But also I have huge pride when kids like Devon Conway of the Black Caps from my home town excel at cricket or Dylan Richardson who went to the same school as my kids gets selected for Scotland. Or Bradley Roberts who's dad went to Varsity with me get selected for Wales.

But when the Olympics comes around and I see a Brit/Aus/Yank standing on the podium who has has millions in Lottery funding behind them and then our guys who's parents have mortgaged houses and sold their souls to get their kids into that position then it becomes a bit soul destroying. Pro sport is a cruel thing. Representative sport was cool in the amateur era. Its increasingly becoming a farce.

[not_english]

If I can jump in with my own experiences of trying to get my kids to play cricket.

First of all it is hardly played at all in state schools. That was true in primary and high school. I started playing cricket in primary school in New Zealand because that was what all the kids would do at lunch and play time with a tennis ball and bat. Over here in the schools my kids went to in London they are just not allowed to play self organised ball sports.

Secondly when we went to the local club, the game is brilliant and up to about the age of 10 when the kids all get to bat for 2 overs each, and just get minus runs if they get out, and they rotate through all of the bowlers, so everyone bats and bowls equally.
After that age they play proper games, and our experience was that all the best kids who can already play the game well do all the batting and all the bowling. There is normally a dad doing all the coaching and selections, and they are trying to get their own kids into Borough and County, so the stats are all important. There is no room for encouraging lesser players.
Memorably at one game we were at the kids on the team we were playing cheered when their own batsman got out, because they had been waiting to bat for so long. I'd have retired them at 30 personally.

My kids weren't enjoying mainly fielding all the time, and have since stopped playing completely. They showed a flicker of interest again when the World Cup was on TV in 2019, but have basically lost any interest in the game.

[Gumboot]

Justin Langer's time as Australian coach is over after the former opening batter ended six months of speculation and walked away from the role.

Langer's management group confirmed on Saturday their client had tendered his resignation, effective immediately.

Langer had met with Cricket Australia officials on Friday night after his future was discussed in length at a seven-hour board meeting earlier in the day.

[Insane_Homer]

Eng V India WC 50 over final on now - Skysports

Eng batting first, 4/1

[JM2K6]

Whether it was Graeme Swann or the ECB who was delving into whether Brevis had an English grandparent is immaterial for the purposes of my point. Which I thought I'd made in a jocular manner, but apparently not.

You seem to think that making a post about a different point excuses the blatant lie you put in for no reason except to try and make English cricket look bad, hoping that no-one would check.

And for the record, because it's ironic given you're banging on about being 'jocular', Swann wasn't delving into whether Brevis had an English grandparent. He was making a joke based on how good Brevis has been and how England have managed to select players in the past on the grandparent rule. A joke. Which Kent understood, and apparently you didn't. So I'd work on that first before telling anyone else they missed the humour.

Christ, I really don't know what you are getting so incensed about.

Who cares whether its' Graeme Swann or the ECB, the point I'm making is the same. Unless you are denying that England regularly use South African players?

The point I was TRYING to make is that growing the game in the black population is beneficial because it's unlikely that they would find an English grandparent in their ancestry. I used Brevis and Maphaka to illustrate this.

I don't give a shit about your point, Rinkals. There's a huge difference between Swann cracking a joke - taken as such by the journo you referenced - and the ECB investigating whether the kid has an English grandparent. You deliberately lied in order to make the ECB look bad, and are desperately trying to deflect having been caught out again.

So, I'll ask again: why did you lie? Why are you like this? What is wrong with you?

[FalseBayFC]

Its entirely feasible that the ECB would be interested in Brevis's ancestry. Getting an agent in SA to put out some feelers would be pretty easy.

[JM2K6]

Its entirely feasible that the ECB would be interested in Brevis's ancestry. Getting an agent in SA to put out some feelers would be pretty easy.

Sure, it's not an unthinkable thing to happen. But everything about Rinkals' claim was made up. Because that's what he does. He rails against misinformation campaigns elsewhere and yet on anything to do with English cricket he's a one-man Fox News.

[Rinkals]

What absolute bullshit.

You are whipping yourself into a frenzy over fuck all.

You "don't give a shit about" the point I'm making, yet you fly into a rage over an incidental reference to the ECB.

[JM2K6]

What absolute bullshit.

You are whipping yourself into a frenzy over fuck all.

You "don't give a shit about" the point I'm making, yet you fly into a rage over an incidental reference to the ECB.

Correct, I don't care about the point you were trying to make. I just want to know why you lied again, and why you keep going this. You're a fundamentally dishonest person when it comes to English cricket, frequently conspiracy minded, and you make stuff up to make us look bad.

So you've been found out again, and you're refusing you explain how you read a tweet from a Saffer journo laughing at Swann's joke and turned that into "the ECB are looking into Brevis' grandparents" - an obvious lie.

Why did you lie?

Please don't try and deflect by claiming I'm in a rage or anything - I just am unwilling to let you bluff your way out of it for once.

Why did you lie, Rinkals? Why do you do this?