The future?

[dazedpenguin]

This may be a tempting analysis but it doesn't square with the fact that the entire Surrey playing staff, which includes more big(gish) names and Hundred players than any other county, were apparently against a reduction. So there must be other factors shaping player opinions.

Surrey play home CC games in front of decent-size crowds, and won the title three years running. Maybe their players actually like the CC, regardless of their own personal standing and earning power. If that's what it is, then it suggests plenty of players at other counties don't like it, or at least aren't that bothered.

One thing the players are concerned about is the ridiculous schedule and the amount of cricket played. Surrey have such a large squad that they can rest players and cover for injuries and international callups. The players are going to be happier with the status quo. Essex can't do that, so the players are going to end up knackered, carrying injuries and generally going through the motions at times. We can say yes but they're playing cricket for a living, they're not sitting behind a desk all day or working on a building site, but the current schedule can certainly drain all the fun out of it.

I don't think reducing the number of championship games is going to be the answer to making the schedule less of a mess, it's just tinkering at the edges.

[spirali]

Surrey have such a large squad that they can rest players and cover for injuries and international callups. The players are going to be happier with the status quo. Essex can't do that, so the players are going to end up knackered, carrying injuries and generally going through the motions at times.

Derbyshire are another county where it's been made public that the players were unanimously against a reduction. They are a smaller club, presumably in a similar position to Essex in terms of playing staff. So whatever is driving player opinions, it can't be as simple as stronger players v lesser players, or big clubs v small clubs.

As for the schedule, it'd be interesting to know how much more packed it is compared to previous years. In 1992 each county played 22 CC matches (a mix of 3 and 4 day games, in one of the ECB's characteristic fudges). '93 was the year it went to being fully 4-day, each county playing 17 matches, plus the various one-day competitions: the Sunday League was 50 overs per side that year, the B+H 55 overs, the Natwest 60 overs. Nothing as short as 20 overs or 100 balls. So it's hard to see how player workload could have massively increased since then, although I'll admit I have neither the time nor the inclination to pick through the fixture lists to work that out precisely. What is certain however is that the season is longer now, and I wonder if the way the CC has been shunted to the beginning and end of the season has devalued it for current players.

[Andy]

It is simple. Players have an easier workload nowadays. The only difference is more overseas travelling during the season and the introduction of more day night cricket mixed up with morning starts the next day.

I remember when Steve Harmison started training with one of the football clubs in the north east it shocked him how physically demanding the training was. Dare I say it but the current generation does not fully appreciate the demands that a full time professional sportsperson has to meet.

[dazedpenguin]

It is simple. Players have an easier workload nowadays. The only difference is more overseas travelling during the season and the introduction of more day night cricket mixed up with morning starts the next day.

I remember when Steve Harmison started training with one of the football clubs in the north east it shocked him how physically demanding the training was. Dare I say it but the current generation does not fully appreciate the demands that a full time professional sportsperson has to meet.

I think today's players train a lot harder than those of even Harmison's generation. There may be a gap between those who play the franchise leagues and the everyday county pro, but the days when players turned up a few weeks before the season started and did a few laps of the field are long gone. Pros from both eras have said that the intensity of play is a lot more now, mainly due to T20 and the pressures to get a franchise gig.

But in terms of amount of cricket played, there probably was more in the 90s, and there weren't the long gaps with no red ball cricket.

[Andy]

Not sure I buy this intensity nonsense. They spend too much time in the gym not enough practising. 

I watched the 100 and I see that there are not as many cart horses in the field but you do not need a six pack to play and the standard of fielding even in the 2000s was not like the 1960s or 1980s even.

It is the sense of entitlement that gets me. Same in the female game. Ironically the more physical sports have less of this I.e. womens rugby is better than womens football.

[kingstonj1]

This may be a tempting analysis but it doesn't square with the fact that the entire Surrey playing staff, which includes more big(gish) names and Hundred players than any other county, were apparently against a reduction. So there must be other factors shaping player opinions.

Surrey play home CC games in front of decent-size crowds, and won the title three years running. Maybe their players actually like the CC, regardless of their own personal standing and earning power. If that's what it is, then it suggests plenty of players at other counties don't like it, or at least aren't that bothered.

One thing the players are concerned about is the ridiculous schedule and the amount of cricket played. Surrey have such a large squad that they can rest players and cover for injuries and international callups. The players are going to be happier with the status quo. Essex can't do that, so the players are going to end up knackered, carrying injuries and generally going through the motions at times. We can say yes but they're playing cricket for a living, they're not sitting behind a desk all day or working on a building site, but the current schedule can certainly drain all the fun out of it.

I don't think reducing the number of championship games is going to be the answer to making the schedule less of a mess, it's just tinkering at the edges.

This doesn't wash dp. Only the quick quicks are impacted fitness wise. Yes it's a slog bowling 50 overs a game as a medium fast bowler as all ours are (at best) and most on the circuit are, but it's not superhuman. And batsmen likewise it's hit a physical drain. Mental perhaps but that's another colour horse completely.

Its simple age old wish less work for the same money.

[kingstonj1]

It is simple. Players have an easier workload nowadays. The only difference is more overseas travelling during the season and the introduction of more day night cricket mixed up with morning starts the next day.

I remember when Steve Harmison started training with one of the football clubs in the north east it shocked him how physically demanding the training was. Dare I say it but the current generation does not fully appreciate the demands that a full time professional sportsperson has to meet.

I think today's players train a lot harder than those of even Harmison's generation. There may be a gap between those who play the franchise leagues and the everyday county pro, but the days when players turned up a few weeks before the season started and did a few laps of the field are long gone. Pros from both eras have said that the intensity of play is a lot more now, mainly due to T20 and the pressures to get a franchise gig.

But in terms of amount of cricket played, there probably was more in the 90s, and there weren't the long gaps with no red ball cricket.

Pressure to get franchise gig from whom??

Themselves. And pressure for what reason? Greed and earning more.

Which is fine but let's not dress that up or pretend it's not purely selfish and financial. Nowt to do with physical stresses.

[dazedpenguin]

Pressure to get franchise gig from whom??

Themselves. And pressure for what reason? Greed and earning more.

Which is fine but let's not dress that up or pretend it's not purely selfish and financial. Nowt to do with physical stresses.

Why shouldn't players seek to maximise their earning potential? It's not greed, it's making the most of a short career. If I had the talent to play at anything more than a park level when no one else showed up, I'd have done the same. And so now the players will look at a schedule that they see makes it more difficult to safeguard their futures, and try and avoid flogging themselves into the ground physically and mentally.

To be clear, I'd rather have one championship division of 18 and back to the days of at least 17 games, but that is fighting against the dying of the light. And it's not sustainable to have a situation where a lot of players are unhappy and threatening to strike, because that is the worst situation for everyone.

I would like to see the players put their arguments, I'm just going by what I've heard some of them say. I'd like to hear what Sam Cook has to say, for example.

[neil]

Pressure to get franchise gig from whom??

Themselves. And pressure for what reason? Greed and earning more.

Which is fine but let's not dress that up or pretend it's not purely selfish and financial. Nowt to do with physical stresses.

Why shouldn't players seek to maximise their earning potential? It's not greed, it's making the most of a short career. If I had the talent to play at anything more than a park level when no one else showed up, I'd have done the same. And so now the players will look at a schedule that they see makes it more difficult to safeguard their futures, and try and avoid flogging themselves into the ground physically and mentally.

To be clear, I'd rather have one championship division of 18 and back to the days of at least 17 games, but that is fighting against the dying of the light. And it's not sustainable to have a situation where a lot of players are unhappy and threatening to strike, because that is the worst situation for everyone.

I would like to see the players put their arguments, I'm just going by what I've heard some of them say. I'd like to hear what Sam Cook has to say, for example.

As if by magic 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c336g0dp785o

[kingstonj1]

Pressure to get franchise gig from whom??

Themselves. And pressure for what reason? Greed and earning more.

Which is fine but let's not dress that up or pretend it's not purely selfish and financial. Nowt to do with physical stresses.

Why shouldn't players seek to maximise their earning potential? It's not greed, it's making the most of a short career. If I had the talent to play at anything more than a park level when no one else showed up, I'd have done the same. And so now the players will look at a schedule that they see makes it more difficult to safeguard their futures, and try and avoid flogging themselves into the ground physically and mentally.

To be clear, I'd rather have one championship division of 18 and back to the days of at least 17 games, but that is fighting against the dying of the light. And it's not sustainable to have a situation where a lot of players are unhappy and threatening to strike, because that is the worst situation for everyone.

I would like to see the players put their arguments, I'm just going by what I've heard some of them say. I'd like to hear what Sam Cook has to say, for example.

I haven't said they shouldn't I would.

My issue is the dressing it up as about performance and intensity in  the current environment that's simply a faslehood.

[kingstonj1]

Pressure to get franchise gig from whom??

Themselves. And pressure for what reason? Greed and earning more.

Which is fine but let's not dress that up or pretend it's not purely selfish and financial. Nowt to do with physical stresses.

Why shouldn't players seek to maximise their earning potential? It's not greed, it's making the most of a short career. If I had the talent to play at anything more than a park level when no one else showed up, I'd have done the same. And so now the players will look at a schedule that they see makes it more difficult to safeguard their futures, and try and avoid flogging themselves into the ground physically and mentally.

To be clear, I'd rather have one championship division of 18 and back to the days of at least 17 games, but that is fighting against the dying of the light. And it's not sustainable to have a situation where a lot of players are unhappy and threatening to strike, because that is the worst situation for everyone.

I would like to see the players put their arguments, I'm just going by what I've heard some of them say. I'd like to hear what Sam Cook has to say, for example.

As if by magic 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c336g0dp785o

A load of rubbish. Bowling at 75mph isn't a massive strain just be open and say it's about earning money in a franchise gig.

[dazedpenguin]

I haven't said they shouldn't I would.

My issue is the dressing it up as about performance and intensity in  the current environment that's simply a faslehood.

Yes, I just read Sam's interview :-) I don't think the players would have been arguing about high performance in their WhatsApp group.

[Essexfan8899]

Dissappointing view from Sam there, which every County fan would disagree with.

 I don't crticise players for being self interested, but please be honest with your position - it's about money and nothing else.

Players would much rather chase the dollar playing franchise cricket earning more, than the day in day out of the county circuit.

in simple terms, they would rather do less work for more money. I get that, and wouldn't we all, but please credit the cricket fans with some intellgence.

This nonsense about mental health, burn out, need to be peak performance etc..........absolute rubbish.

Sadly, we will see more and more players sign white ball only contracts as the ECB champion the crisp cup, marginalise 50 overs at the expense of red ball.

[nat]

Dissappointing view from Sam there, which every County fan would disagree with.

 I don't crticise players for being self interested, but please be honest with your position - it's about money and nothing else.

Players would much rather chase the dollar playing franchise cricket earning more, than the day in day out of the county circuit.

in simple terms, they would rather do less work for more money. I get that, and wouldn't we all, but please credit the cricket fans with some intellgence.

This nonsense about mental health, burn out, need to be peak performance etc..........absolute rubbish.

Sadly, we will see more and more players sign white ball only contracts as the ECB champion the crisp cup, marginalise 50 overs at the expense of red ball.

Agree. Very disappointed with my boy. I'll disinherit him.

More generally we need a revolution at the ECB that prioritises Test cricket and by association 4-day County Cricket. Players must be incentivised (salary and prize money) to play 4-day county cricket.

The money is there to do it.

[SirChef26]

Surrey have such a large squad that they can rest players and cover for injuries and international callups. The players are going to be happier with the status quo. Essex can't do that, so the players are going to end up knackered, carrying injuries and generally going through the motions at times.

Derbyshire are another county where it's been made public that the players were unanimously against a reduction. They are a smaller club, presumably in a similar position to Essex in terms of playing staff. So whatever is driving player opinions, it can't be as simple as stronger players v lesser players, or big clubs v small clubs.

As for the schedule, it'd be interesting to know how much more packed it is compared to previous years. In 1992 each county played 22 CC matches (a mix of 3 and 4 day games, in one of the ECB's characteristic fudges). '93 was the year it went to being fully 4-day, each county playing 17 matches, plus the various one-day competitions: the Sunday League was 50 overs per side that year, the B+H 55 overs, the Natwest 60 overs. Nothing as short as 20 overs or 100 balls. So it's hard to see how player workload could have massively increased since then, although I'll admit I have neither the time nor the inclination to pick through the fixture lists to work that out precisely. What is certain however is that the season is longer now, and I wonder if the way the CC has been shunted to the beginning and end of the season has devalued it for current players.

Yes because Derbyshire hardly have any players who play in the 100 or go off and play franchise cricket. The only cricket that 95% of Derbyshire players will play across an English summer is county cricket, so why on earth would they want a reduction? Not to mention a strike would probably see a number of those players ultimately out of work, laid off by Derbyshire to make up the revenue shortfall.