27,000 at Middlesex v Surrey
- Thread starter maghater
- Start date
- Status
Bri
Striker
We can't and we can't compete on income on any front with several of the Southern counties.
All Durham can do is to rely on the ECB to make payments and to cap salaries so that the rich cannot buy the titles - which they will if the rules ever allow it. And then Durham must develop their players themselves, which they're trying to do.
But if the ECB weaken like the FA did in football then the best players will always gravitate to the Counties with the most money.
TheRey
Winger
I love this argument.
Okay, we took Borthwick and Rocky because Di Venuto knew and wanted them, but apart from that we throw money at the academy.
Regular fixtures in our team over the last few years: T Curran, S Curran, Roy, Meaker, Ansari, Burns, Harinath, Pillans, Dunne, Virdi, Sibley, Pope, Burke, Dernbach, and now McKerr.
Of our regular 11 in the T20 blast this year, 7 have come through our academy system.
Over the last ten years, we've ploughed almost every penny we make into the academy and it's slowly starting to pay dividends, but yeah, all we do is throw money and sign everyone.
Honest.
Someone on the internet told me.
This isn't meant to be having a go but a genuine query - when was the last time Surrey produced a player who wasn't South African or a public schoolboy? Most of that list seem to fall into one or the other whereas Durham, Yorks etc are pretty different.
Surrey can use their resources anyway they wish-it's their money.
They have an annual turnover circa £23m and almost every penny of it for the last 10 years has been ploughed into the academy and it's slowly starting to pay dividends.
Not a very successful use of resources then but,of course, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.
Why does being a public school boy matter?
Voice of fair play
Striker
It's not ridiculous its personal preference,and as much some people hate to admit it, fans like to watch T20 the evidence is there to see
Nothing wrong with being one obviously but it'd be sad if more counties went that way and just get players from the richest demographic. Stark difference between that and the players Durham have produced (Jennings and the odd Irish aside).
Fewer public schools I guess
It doesn't matter but it differs because the public schoolboy probably owes his cricket development to the 1st class coaching he received at his school rather than at a county cricket academy.
Partially yes. And that makes them better at a young age so more likely to get snapped up.
Given what Surrey is like as a county it's hardly a surprise
Ageing trundler
Midfield
It's a fact of life that there are more public schools down south and cricketers are produced due to that. In the north, clubs are almost solely responsible for producing young cricketers.
Bri
Striker
It's also true that if a lad (down South especially but not always) shows talent at cricket he may be awarded a scholarship at a public school. I think that happened to Nasser Hussein and to Joe Root at Sheffield Collegiate. How many public schools are cricket orientated up here ... Barnard Castle maybe although I've only heard of it in relation to Rugby. edit Durham School of course.
Ageing trundler
Midfield
I wonder if Scotty makes his way back up here in a year or two...
Do you not think that if London has a population of say 7m and 93% of those go to state schools they should be able to get a few good players out of that pool? Durham, Yorks and Lancs churn them out.
Bri
Striker
I'd find it surprising if Stoneman was dropped, although he hasn't got a score in T20 he'd been playing pretty well in the RLC scoring at least 2 50's and both with a strike rate over 100. Scotty is the one who has been struggling a bit.
- Status
