Good forum

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022:04:06:13:15:51 by BarmierKev.

Very good all round for me
A lot of sensible questions ,well answered some with a bit of humour when needed.
From my armchair I felt a positive vibe and look forward to the season with renewed hope

A couple of points. Stuart Law. His signing of Mark Stoneman gives us a decent opening partnership. He introduced a number of youngsters who made progress and encouraged spin. A skill ignored for the previous ten years. So he has left behind a more solid foundation than the one he inherited which should assist the new set up in my imho. Outgrounds. As mentioned this brought to his feet the usual moron demanding that a Middlesex club Uxbridge should be demonised by the hierarchy to suit his ego. As an Uxbridge member myself not everyone shares his quaint views. He also queried the existence of Middlesexshire. Which makes you wonder why he is among us. 60 years on from the current expensive mess we inhabit, we are still here. Time to move on sunshine, sit down and be quiet.

Thanks Beefy.

Slight factual inaccuracy - Stuart Law did not sign Stoneman.
More truthful to say the signing took place while he was Head Coach. SL was not the Middlesex Fergie !!!!

At best, SL would have had a say in the process. Very unlikely that Stoneman's agent would have phoned him up or that he would have had the ability to agree a deal. The Professional Cricket Committee, headed by Richard Sykes, would make that decision. As it did in getting rid of him. NB, Johnno not shown as being on that now either.

Law was certainly responsible for demoting the established off spinner, Ollie Rayner, whom he had already identified at the March pre season lunch of his first season as someone who "had allocated himself the role of court jester", and favouring Sowter early on in his tenure, but that was because he had the last word on team selection.

Law also clearly identified Malan as coming back from being cheaply dismissed and moaning about an unplayable surface, at Sussex in 2020, and so no surprises that Dawid left at the end of his contract. However, Malan still had England ambitions then, and might have felt the need to leave for a Div 1 team to further these.

Sadly, any coach is only as good as the material he has to work with, and if the spinners coming through aren't any good, and don't make the team better than it already is, why would you pick them? Patel had left before SL arrived, and no one else appears to have put their hands up. Lower down the production line, if no spinners were coming through from the academy or Seconds, not much anyone in the club can do. You can't develop something from nowhere or hold a gun to a seamer's head and make them bowl leggies. That may be how we came by Rayner anyway. Some people always seem to know better than the coaches, with the benefit of hindsight.

Certainly, SL gave Robbie White, Martin, Joe C. , Luke and Blake their starts. Ethan's potential was already known when he arrived. They all have developed while he was Coach. For me, the jury is out on de Caires. Tom Helm appears to have fallen by the wayside, when he appeared to be being lined up as Stuart Broad's replacement. The idea of developing Harry as an all rounder never took off either, but Martin Andersson's development also saw to that.

I was very disappointed that SL's time there did not improve our performances, especially as once you go over the whitewash, it's down to the players. Obviously others thought he had more to do with this, and acted. Possibly they saw other stuff that we didn't. However, management must be seen to manage. Wish him well. It's only a game.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022:03:14:13:00:14 by Primrose Hillbilly.

Slight inaccuracy PH on Malan. He was still under contract for two years but it was mutually agreed to terminate. His parting words as he entered the autumn of his career were ' I don't want to finish plodding along'. Understandable and his move has worked to a degree and still might on white ball. On the spin front. Well Rayner was the first and only choice from 2010 until Law kick started his departure. Patel. Not much opportunity seven games in four years. I wasn't suggesting Law was solely responsible for Stoneman's signing but I would be pretty sure Sykes sounded him out afore committing to doing so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022:03:16:11:46:57 by Seaxe_man1.

SM,
No one could read your “Stuart Law. His signing of Mark Stoneman….“ and not believe you are claiming SL was solely responsible. (Goebbels…. Putin, maybe, but he may have other things on his mind right now.) If you did not mean to say that, why write it, or did your keyboard run away with you while distracted? Fortunately, a few facts debunk another specious bit of “SM’s rewrites of history” ™.

Instead of the myth of “the class of 2010 deliberately not developing spinners” why not see if there were any to be developed? Were there? Facts and logic suggest that if so, they did not merit frequent selection - Patel e.g. - and when selected, did not make an overwhelming case for re-selection. If we had an abundance of spinners, why recruit? (Logic) Again, it’s not a one man operation, and that process led to the recruitment of someone who contributed on several fronts to that team, - so made a better case for selection than an unknown quantity one trick pony - and was part of the only team to win the recent honours.

What point are you trying to make about the number of matches Patel played, unless to reinforce the above? Not even you could suggest he should have been selected until developing into a match winner. With all your expertise and first class cricket experience, how long do you think that might have taken? The point made from Selvey downwards is that when you WERE given an opportunity, after making a strong case in the Seconds, you seized it to make it impossible for you to be dropped, for fear of being discarded and have to await promotion all over again. That way the team benefits, as natural competition for places ensures good performance. I can only recall Patel taking wickets once, when Lancs were trying to escape relegation on a late season wicket.

Well done on Malan. Just shows you what a few genuine facts can achieve.

Just my view PH which you are free to disagree with. I have no specific agenda just observations.

Quote:

Primrose Hillbilly
I can only recall Patel taking wickets once, when Lancs were trying to escape relegation on a late season wicket.

I can recall him taking more than a few at Taunton but it's probably fair to discount those rather heavily given the nature of the pitch.

Patel played plenty of white ball matches with a fair degree of success. I do worry sometimes that some spinners are pushed down the T20 route and never develop into a proper championship bowler who can winkle or frustrate a batsman out. The long hop outside off stump is often successful in T20 as it becomes a regulation single to the sweeper on the boundary. Same ball in the Championship and it should be four - pressure lifted.


Adelaide

Correct Adelaide. He took twelve at Taunton. I saw the game end to end. Patel also played handily at Worcester. As you are into facts PH. It is a fact that after ascending to the England Lions in 2014 and signing a four year deal, he was granted seven games during that contract. As to whether there were academy options. Who knows. It was decided that Rayner was first on the team sheet. 12 years down the track Tom Smith discarded for Rayner still contracted at Glos. For a spinner as we see with Leach who has bags of knockers amongst the Scribblers, they need bags of overs to gain rythym.On a dead Antiguan track he got the opportunity. Too gauge as to whether Patel had the nous, likely seven games a season were required rather than a touch under two.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022:03:16:12:07:57 by Seaxe_man1.

SM

Players can be given contracts because of their one day attributes; although they are often available for the championship they rarely play. Nathan Sowter was a good example of this for many years. IIRC he was taken to Taunton for That Match but did not play (it would have been his CC debut). With Ollie injured we had Patel, Stirling and a bit of Malan against Leach, Bess and van der Merwe, not much of a contest. Ravi's twelve was more a consequence of the absence of another regular spinner than anything else.

My point is that simply because someone has been given a contract it does not logically follow that they are considered likely to get up to standard for each and every form of the game. Having said that, I don't actually think Patel was pigeonholed as a one day specialist and he was unlucky with injury and the pitches played on.

Nobody else came in for Ravi when he was released, though I appreciate that it may have been his choice at that stage to step away from the county game.


Adelaide

Rayner became a fixture in the team despite dramatic declines in his batting and bowling, apparently because he was a good slip fielder and generally viewed as a "decent white cove". Patel was never given the same opportunities in the championship because his batting and fielding were not great, and it was implied that he didn't apply himself professionally.

I spoke to Patel's dad at Uxbridge in the last year of his contract. He told me he was retiring from first class cricket in order to take over at Harrow At Mary's as Director of Cricket and Captain. This he is now doing. Not a fact, just my opinion but his dad gave the impression that he was unimpressed with his son's time at Mx.

Quote:

Seaxe_man1
Outgrounds. As mentioned this brought to his feet the usual moron demanding that a Middlesex club Uxbridge should be demonised by the hierarchy to suit his ego. As an Uxbridge member myself not everyone shares his quaint views. He also queried the existence of Middlesexshire. Which makes you wonder why he is among us. 60 years on from the current expensive mess we inhabit, we are still here. Time to move on sunshine, sit down and be quiet.

SM

I've just watched the forum. For some reason I couldn't get sound working so I had to rely on sub-titles referring to whiteboard cricket, Radlip and poor pictures. A bit wearing but I got the gist.

What I didn't get anywhere was any reference to Uxbridge, Middlesexshire (sic) or whatever., so I'm bemused by that.

I did however find your advice to move on quite amusing, given your preference for things as they used to be!


Adelaide

It came over loud and clear to me Adelaide on my phone via the club video. Also mentioned by Beefy last item on first post. Alan Coleman bless him also said he wants the members to get behind the team. The divisive attitude as displayed by this bloke we can well do without, demanding that Uxbridge be demonised.. Appeared to live in the past. The current mess has-been around for 60 years but Mx lives on. I also am a member of Uxbridge and found this guy's comments insulting. He didn't get support from Alan Coleman who replied.

SM

That is very odd. There was a question about outgrounds, partly answered by Coleman. Perhaps one liners from the audience (if that is what they were) were not turned into sub-titles; there were some brief gaps.

I noted the hope that Lord's pitches would be better once some of the "social event" matches had been kicked out because there would be more time for preparation. However I seem to recall MCC saying that it would allow more inclusive matches to be played instead, in which case no extra time, unless said inclusive matches are played on the Nursery ground. Some might wonder whether MCC has any real intention of allowing the oiks in but let's assume they are genuine for now.

With no sound the mind does wander (though not enough to miss Uxbridge etc.). I started thinking that Mike O'Farrell looks a bit look Ian Holloway and that Alan Colman could have come from the much missed Warren Zevon's "Werewolves of London" - his hair was perfect!


Adelaide



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022:03:17:15:13:42 by adelaide.

The Uxbridge abuser Adelaide made his comments at the end of his spiel. The ' so long as it isn't Uxbridge was loud though the querying of Middlesexshire as an entity tailed off a bit'. Alan Coleman's response to his diatribe was: if you held a quick poll in this room you would probably get. 25% support for each of the main four grounds we have used. As seconds coach he would be aware of the nuances of all unlike the loud divisive character.

SM

Thanks - so the sub-titles didn't catch it. I got Coleman's response, which also included the thought that if you rarely play at your outground you lose much of your home advantage. (And it costs...)


Adelaide

A contradiction there Adelaide as Lord's pitches are described as poor. Plus we play there for nothing at present. No shop either. So not that rosy.

Quote:

Seaxe_man1
A contradiction there Adelaide as Lord's pitches are described as poor. Plus we play there for nothing at present. No shop either. So not that rosy.

No, I don't think there is any contradiction.

Taunton 2016 was poor but gave Somerset a huge advantage through familiarity. If Lord's pitches have certain characteristics you would have thought that the team most used to them would have an advantage.

Where that argument might fall down is if the pitches are so poor that batsmen lose confidence in themselves. I think that may well have been the case in the last three or four years. Alan Coleman (or was it Johnson?) said as much, which is why the greenest of green tops is in place at MTS, so the batsmen can get on top of it - though, goodness knows, that might actually reduce confidence further! The idea, though, is clearly to exploit greater familiarity with the likely conditions, that is create a home advantage.

The financial aspect is important but the pitch and home advantage issue was being discussed purely in cricketing terms.


Adelaide

With the rise of the 100 belt and braces says it makes sense to keep outgrounds on board. They will be needed. On the finance front they could produce more via sponsors. I think I read BM are no longer our top sponsor miffed I think that Lord's advertising was a no no. The shop situation is a shambles. The break clause triggered by MCC in 2019 should have contained the caveat that in the event of being triggered. Then the pre 2015 order should have been restored. IE.gatemoney, marketing shop etc. As it is MCC retain all of those while for Mx it's sweet fa.

Briefly mentioned by JW as Mike being the Chair of Chairs. With the Brailsford Review coming, the early leaks on the outcome don't sound promising for counties. As to whether the ECB have the authority to cancel counties is an interesting question. Up to ten rumoured to be in the firing line.

Unlike the other nine under the cosh we don't have a ground to hire out for pop concerts to fill the gaps. Plus from previous, we have support in the hierarchy for the five game concept. Should go down well with sponsors and members alike. The Beeching. Report to reveal all.of the grisly details.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022:03:21:08:51:49 by Seaxe_man1.

I thought that at least 12 counties had to vote in favour of any reduction scheme so it would be a bit turkeys voting for Christmas. Perhaps mergers are the answer. Middlesex could merge with Essex and call ourselves "North London".

Quote:

freddie tittlemouse
I thought that at least 12 counties had to vote in favour of any reduction scheme so it would be a bit turkeys voting for Christmas. Perhaps mergers are the answer. Middlesex could merge with Essex and call ourselves "North London".

Not sure that is going to work this way this time Freddie. Whatever Dr Beeching Brailsford comes up with they will try to force through. According to Strauss small changes are no use to English cricket. His quote on BBC Sport Cricket. Sir Andy Nash reckons it's because the TMGs, some of whom like Yorkshire are heavily in debt, so the ECB wants to free up more money to pump in by getting rid of the non TMGs. According to Sir Nash this is all under the guise of improving the England team. Nash says they are not being honest. Now there's a surprise.

Damian Collins MP on DCMS committee questions Brailsfords suitability to be heading up a review of English. Cricket. The Maclaurin Review I seem to remember was headed up by a golfer. I don't think he got a hole in one though.

So now we know what is afoot with Strauss's Beeching Committee. It sure doesn't sound good.

Quote:

freddie tittlemouse
I thought that at least 12 counties had to vote in favour of any reduction scheme so it would be a bit turkeys voting for Christmas. Perhaps mergers are the answer. Middlesex could merge with Essex and call ourselves "North London".

We could merge with Essex and if we did - take the Middle out of our name and the sex out of theirs.

Seems reasonable to me 🤔

Quote:

Dave_LW

Quote:

freddie tittlemouse
I thought that at least 12 counties had to vote in favour of any reduction scheme so it would be a bit turkeys voting for Christmas. Perhaps mergers are the answer. Middlesex could merge with Essex and call ourselves "North London".

We could merge with Essex and if we did - take the Middle out of our name and the sex out of theirs.

Seems reasonable to me 🤔

Manies the truth spoken in gest Dave. The meeja speculation of 12 elite counties of which we are thought to be one, poses the following thought's.The 12 won't be counties more like franchises as they can stage auctions to cherrypick the best of the doomed six. In which case at Lord's who runs the franchise. Mx definite outsiders. Further alleged that the doomed six can claim transfer fees. Amongst our hierarchy conferences are still an attractive option, apart from the elite twelve, also thought to be attractive. Some of the hierarchy are unlikely to want to grant members a referendum in case they get the wrong answer. Essex. Even if one of the twelve elites, they are not a reliable vote for Brailsford and the ECB. So, the vote could be 7/11 not enough. Essex may think but for the grace of God go I. So you need to be careful what you wish for. They, ECB, only really want eight, so four can be dumped later after the vote if they get the 12. The six will vote against so requires one rebel to frustrate. Plenty of P45s in the offing.


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022:04:04:17:41:31 by Seaxe_man1.