T20 Blast Crowds

[jackpunch]

Good or great talent in this case is always spotted, in this case Durham done very well to spot it first.

The fine line argument works with borderline cricketers who may make it ,not world stars!

We talking about a world stat here and in the top 3 all rounders England have ever produced, if Durham never came along first of course someone of that talent would have been noticed by another county.



I never knew Livingstone and Clark were from Cumbria, interesting that.

Barrow and Whitehaven respectively. Both cricketing hotbeds !

 

[Voice of fair play]

Barrow and Whitehaven respectively. Both cricketing hotbeds !

Stokes was and is far too good and far too talented not to get picked up and eventually play for England.

It really is that simple, all other stuff just comes back to that point imo.

The point that joining Durham meant he played for England earlier is a good and fair point.

The point that he would never have played for England at any time,without Durham is a terrible one imo,

 

[brandon]

The point that he would never have played for England at any time,without Durham is a terrible one imo,

You cannot possibly say that, you will never know. It’s more than fair to make the point that he wouldn’t have been an international cricketer without getting a start at Durham.

Those arguing for, have given many plausible explanations to back up their argument. We’ve seen none of that from you.

 

[wayne entwhistle no9]

The 100 will probably work but it's the wrong way to go about reforming cricket.
Scrap county cricket and have 10 regional sides and the whole country would be equally covered not just certain areas lucky enough to have a 1st class county.
Each regional side responsible and accountable for producing players from their region.

 

[Steak Pie]

No, it is you that isn’t listening.

For talent to be spotted, it needs the opportunity to show its potential.

Durham gave Stokes the conduit to showcase his talent.

Had Durham not been around the chances are that he’d have opted for rugby league and/or would’ve returned to New Zealand with his family like Parkside said.

There’s a very very fine line between success and failure when it comes to being in the right place at the right time to get spotted.

You're wrong on this one chief.

Stokes was player of the season in the Lancs leagues when he was 14/15, and was in his 20s and fully established when the family moved back. He played a final at Burnley CC in the mid 2000s (IIRC) where everyone already knew all about him.

Stokes is once in a generation talent, you can preclude him from the wider debate about talent coming through in the north.

 

[brandon]

Good or great talent in this case is always spotted, in this case Durham done very well to spot it first.

The fine line argument works with borderline cricketers who may make it ,not world stars!

We talking about a world stat here and in the top 3 all rounders England have ever produced, if Durham never came along first of course someone of that talent would have been noticed by another county.



I never knew Livingstone and Clark were from Cumbria, interesting that.

The more I think about the more ridiculous the argument that Stokes would not have made it sounds.

Would Ian Botham and Andrew Flintoff not have made it if Somerset or Lancashire never spotted them first!

Of course they would!

If a Somerset fan or Lancashire fan came on here and said them two players would not have played for England unless they spotted them, we would laugh our heads off at them..

That’s not taking away any of the clear fanastic work Durham have done over the years developing other players for England that otherwise they may have not had the opportunity.

But it’s ludicrous to suggest one of the best all rounders in the world, would not have played for England unless Durham spotted him imo.

You really can’t see the wood for the trees on this subject.

You keep repeating the phrase ‘world stars’ but cannot appreciate they are only ‘world stars’ because of the coaching and guidance and experience they’ve received since becoming professional sportsmen - on top of their raw, god-given talent.

Don’t you think there are people out there who would’ve made it to international cricket given the right environment?

Matthew Syed wrote a book about the talent over practice argument and it is very compelling.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546

I’m not suggesting practice alone can turn you into a world class player, but I do strongly believe that there are thousands of talented people out there who didn’t get the chance at the right time and therefore never realised their potential.

They’re out there doing menial jobs and living a normal life, but you don’t know about them because they never got the chance. They were never in the right place at the right time.

With Beefy and Flintoff you’ve used a pretty poor pair of examples, Botham was a professional footballer, I could easily have seen a scenario where he didn’t get a chance at cricket so made his living entirely from football.

Didn’t Flintoff also have trials at a pro-club?

There have been countless cases in local cricket in recent years too that suggest that the individual simply needed to be given a chance that never materialised. Not more telling IMO than the case of Karl Turner and how unfortunate he was with Durham and then Notts.

You're wrong on this one chief.

Stokes was player of the season in the Lancs leagues when he was 14/15, and was in his 20s and fully established when the family moved back. He played a final at Burnley CC in the mid 2000s (IIRC) where everyone already knew all about him.

Stokes is once in a generation talent, you can preclude him from the wider debate about talent coming through in the north.

That only strengthens my point IMO regarding the small window of time between him being spotted and the family moving back to NZ.

 

[Parkside]

I wasn't aware that anyone claimed that Stokes wouldn't have played 1st class cricket but it seems perfectly reasonable that he may well have returned to New Zealand and established his cricket career there particularly given that his father had lost his job in England.
The original discussion, however, was the opportunities NE lads had now Durham has become 1st class. Stokes wasn't a NE lad.

 

[Voice of fair play]

You really can’t see the wood for the trees on this subject.

You keep repeating the phrase ‘world stars’ but cannot appreciate they are only ‘world stars’ because of the coaching and guidance and experience they’ve received since becoming professional sportsmen - on top of their raw, god-given talent.

Don’t you think there are people out there who would’ve made it to international cricket given the right environment?

Matthew Syed wrote a book about the talent over practice argument and it is very compelling.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546

I’m not suggesting practice alone can turn you into a world class player, but I do strongly believe that there are thousands of talented people out there who didn’t get the chance at the right time and therefore never realised their potential.

They’re out there doing menial jobs and living a normal life, but you don’t know about them because they never got the chance. They were never in the right place at the right time.

With Beefy and Flintoff you’ve used a pretty poor pair of examples, Botham was a professional footballer, I could easily have seen a scenario where he didn’t get a chance at cricket so made his living entirely from football.

Didn’t Flintoff also have trials at a pro-club?

There have been countless cases in local cricket in recent years too that suggest that the individual simply needed to be given a chance that never materialised. Not more telling IMO than the case of Karl Turner and how unfortunate he was with Durham and then Notts.



That only strengthens my point IMO regarding the small window of time between him being spotted and the family moving back to NZ.

Despite numerous posts making it abundantly clear you still amazingly can’t accept or refuse to accept the better player you are the more chance of getting picked up and that a world class player will always have more chance thean Karl Turner!

No disrespect intended but you not using Stokes and Turner in the same sentence and making some comparison are you?

I wasn't aware that anyone claimed that Stokes wouldn't have played 1st class cricket but it seems perfectly reasonable that he may well have returned to New Zealand and established his cricket career there particularly given that his father had lost his job in England.
The original discussion, however, was the opportunities NE lads had now Durham has become 1st class. Stokes wasn't a NE lad.

Is it not equally reasonable that someone of is undoubtedly quality what have been picked up by another county, especially considering Lancashire currently have 2 lads from Cumbria on their books less talented than Stokes

You're wrong on this one chief.

Stokes was player of the season in the Lancs leagues when he was 14/15, and was in his 20s and fully established when the family moved back. He played a final at Burnley CC in the mid 2000s (IIRC) where everyone already knew all about him.

Stokes is once in a generation talent, you can preclude him from the wider debate about talent coming through in the north.

That’s all I am really saying really but it has been blown out of proportion.

Stokes is once in a generation talent that was always destined for the big time.

I am really confused how that can be such a unpopular opinion when it seems pretty obvious.

You cannot possibly say that, you will never know. It’s more than fair to make the point that he wouldn’t have been an international cricketer without getting a start at Durham.

Those arguing for, have given many plausible explanations to back up their argument. We’ve seen none of that from you.

The fact he was such a talented cricketer a once in a generation talent is not enough argument than another county would have picked him up?

Once again it’s the fact how good he is and was that is the compelling argument here, I have already agreed your theory possible with a less talented player but not with Stokes.

Simply too good to go unnoticed far too good.

 

[Parkside]

Is it not equally reasonable that someone of is undoubtedly quality what have been picked up by another county, especially considering Lancashire currently have 2 lads from Cumbria on their books less talented than Stokes





Stokes is once in a generation talent that was always destined for the big time.

.

Of course it's equally reasonable but nor is it ludicrous to claim that he wouldn't play for England when he might equally have developed his career back in his homeland. Nor am I sure that he was such a certainty to become a worldly talent-we've seen many wonderkids not develop. Certainly, Stokes would give massive credit to Geoff Cook for his career progression.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Of course it's equally reasonable but nor is it ludicrous to claim that he wouldn't play for England when he might equally have developed his career back in his homeland. Nor am I sure that he was such a certainty to become a worldly talent-we've seen many wonderkids not develop. Certainly, Stokes would give massive credit to Geoff Cook for his career progression.

Not the England coaches then who have coached him for far longer than Cook

I think a talent like that would have been picked no problem

I do take the point about counties developing players of course I do,

But players like Botham,Flintoff and Stokes are just soo talented and clearly have soo much natural ability that they was always going to make it imo.

 

[Parkside]

Not the England coaches then who have coached him for far longer than Cook

I think a talent like that would have been picked no problem

The England batting coach during most of Stokes ' career has just been sacked and watching England's top order continue to struggle against a moving red ball that's no surprise. I believe that Stokes himself is best qualified to know who it is that progressed his career the most. He absolutely reveres Cook, and that's from Harmi when presenting him with his 50th cap.

 

[Voice of fair play]

The England batting coach during most of Stokes ' career has just been sacked and watching England's top order continue to struggle against a moving red ball that's no surprise. I believe that Stokes himself is best qualified to know who it is that progressed his career the most. He absolutely reveres Cook, and that's from Harmi when presenting him with his 50th cap.

Well fair enough, on your second point, but it’s also fair to say that England themselves have played a massive part in his career and has developed his already massive talent while with them

 

[Parkside]

Well fair enough, on your second point, but it’s also fair to say that England themselves have played a massive part in his career and has developed his already massive talent while with them

Depends what you mean by England. Certainly playing at a higher level brings new problems which you have to overcome.Watching England bat ,as I've already stated, , produces compelling evidence that the batting coaches aren't progressing matters. Again just being listening to Sangakara, he identifies the weakness in England batting and articulates clearly how the rectify them. Clearly the English coaches aren't capable of this.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Depends what you mean by England. Certainly playing at a higher level brings new problems which you have to overcome.Watching England bat ,as I've already stated, , produces compelling evidence that the batting coaches aren't progressing matters. Again just being listening to Sangakara, he identifies the weakness in England batting and articulates clearly how the rectify them. Clearly the English coaches aren't capable of this.

Yes, but that's a diffrent argument altogether.

Stokes has progressed while been with England.

You could very easily argue as well, the Englands current struggles are down to the lack of talent in this country rather than lack of capability of England's batting coach.

Otherwise we would not be in a quite ridiculous situation where our opening batsman in the Ashes, does not even open for his county!

 

[Parkside]

Yes, but that's a diffrent argument altogether.

Stokes has progressed while been with England.

You could very easily argue as well, the Englands current struggles are down to the lack of talent in this country rather than lack of capability of England's batting coach.

Otherwise we would not be in a quite ridiculous situation where our opening batsman in the Ashes, does not even open for his county!

Who, Jack Leach
Fair point on the coaching, or the England players are too arrogant to listen to the coach. The other valid argument , which has been aired previously, that playing CC at the extremes of the season doesn't aid development.

 

[brandon]

No disrespect intended but you not using Stokes and Turner in the same sentence and making some comparison are you?

No, I’m absolutely not. If that’s the conclusion you’ve reached after all I replied then I’m not sure there’s any point trying to debate you.

 

[Voice of fair play]

No, I’m absolutely not. If that’s the conclusion you’ve reached after all I replied then I’m not sure there’s any point trying to debate you.

Thought not, no idea why you even mentioned him then, when we were debating Stokes.

Similar mate, think it’s reached it’s comclusion.

Who, Jack Leach
Fair point on the coaching, or the England players are too arrogant to listen to the coach. The other valid argument , which has been aired previously, that playing CC at the extremes of the season doesn't aid development.

No I meant Roy, who should be batting in the middle order and not thrown straight into opening when does not even open for his county.

No, I’m absolutely not. If that’s the conclusion you’ve reached after all I replied then I’m not sure there’s any point trying to debate you.

Think the debate has reached its conclusion, I know where you coming from you have made that clear, and I have made myself clear.

What is even more clear is that we disagree clearly on the subject.

 

[brandon]

Thought not, no idea why you even mentioned him then, when we were debating Stokes.

It’s pretty clear why I mentioned him if you read the entirety of what I said

If you read it again and still don’t get it - don’t bother replying again.

 

[Voice of fair play]

It’s pretty clear why I mentioned him if you read the entirety of what I said

If you read it again and still don’t get it - don’t bother replying again.

I know why you mentioned him but I had already agreed with you on the subject as a general point about players been given a chance so not sure where the need to mention other players as Stokes was the debate.

was saying for the umpteenth time that Stokes was diffrent due to the massive talent he had and that because of that talent will always have been a chance.

 

[Parkside]

Yes,I knew that. Comment meant to be accompanied with