Trevaskis off to Leicestershire



Durham is really going to struggle now in the T20 and other forms without a spinner like Trev. *puts tin hat on as the rabid masses froth to tell me T20 isn't proper cricket*
 
Frank_1976 said:
Durham is really going to struggle now in the T20 and other forms without a spinner like Trev. *puts tin hat on as the rabid masses froth to tell me T20 isn't proper cricket*
Click to expand...
All forms of white ball cricket nowadays are manufactured to give advantage to the batter.. In that context it's not proper cricket but the game has to adapt to maintain its popularity as tastes of society change. I personally much prefer the longer red ball form but each to their own.However I find been referred to collectively as one of "a rabid mass frothing" unnecessarily offensive.
Tastes vary,live and let live and move on.
As to Trev,I do think Durham,and Campbell specifically,are being hasty in discarding him.He's still very young for a spinner and has shown real promise as a batsman.
Sillypoint said:
Signed Callum Parkinson, but id argue is he any better than Trev, Certainly not with the Bat
Click to expand...
Nor in the field
 
Trev good white ball player but not the guile or enough spin for the red ball version.

Replacing him with Parkinson is a slightly better bowler but can’t bat or field.
 
As an all round cricketer he’s fantastic, ideal person to have at your club. Campbell did say though he wanted to have a ‘proper’ spinner in his CC 11 at all times. I’m not sure Trevaskis is that, he is an all rounder. I think given time though he could’ve been a great addition to the top 6 with the bat. It seems though that Trev, fairly so, isn’t keen on waiting.
 
Sillypoint said:
Signed Callum Parkinson, but id argue is he any better than Trev, Certainly not with the Bat
Click to expand...
Both Parkinson and Ackermann are both better T20 bowlers.

Them getting Hundred deals tells you that, whatever we think about the Hundred.

Trev couldn't get a game in red ball and we've swapped him for Parkinson and or Ackermann effectively.
 
Last edited:
Parkside said:
All forms of white ball cricket nowadays are manufactured to give advantage to the batter.. In that context it's not proper cricket but the game has to adapt to maintain its popularity as tastes of society change. I personally much prefer the longer red ball form but each to their own.However I find been referred to collectively as one of "a rabid mass frothing" unnecessarily offensive.
Tastes vary,live and let live and move on.
As to Trev,I do think Durham,and Campbell specifically,are being hasty in discarding him.He's still very young for a spinner and has shown real promise as a batsman.

Nor in the field
Click to expand...
WE GOT ONE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
 
Parkside said:
All forms of white ball cricket nowadays are manufactured to give advantage to the batter.. In that context it's not proper cricket but the game has to adapt to maintain its popularity as tastes of society change. I personally much prefer the longer red ball form but each to their own.However I find been referred to collectively as one of "a rabid mass frothing" unnecessarily offensive.
Tastes vary,live and let live and move on.
As to Trev,I do think Durham,and Campbell specifically,are being hasty in discarding him.He's still very young for a spinner and has shown real promise as a batsman.

Nor in the field
Click to expand...
What it has meant above imo, is that bowlers have really enhanced and developed their skills to a great extent, more slower balls, slower ball bouncers etc etc, as have batsmen now been able to score 360 degrees and fielding has improved ten fold due to white ball cricket to some jaw dropping levels at times.

In fact the all round skills developed in white ball cricket have in fact imo enhanced longer form cricket.

In years gone by would have been unthinkable for such a quality batsman as Root to play reverse scoop or batsman playing reverse sweeps, or a batsmen having the confidence to hit the first ball of a Ashes series for 4.

In fact I genuinely think, cricket is more
‘Proper’ now than it has ever been.

I think that because skills developed both, batting, bowling,fielding and athleticism of the players is light years ahead of when I started watching cricket.

And undoubtedly imo white ball cricket and skills needed in that format have enhanced the game of cricket as a whole.

The only danger which is a concern for all, is that it overtakes test cricket which none of us want
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
What it has meant above imo, is that bowlers have really enhanced and developed their skills to a great extent, more slower balls, slower ball bouncers etc etc, as have batsmen now been able to score 360 degrees and fielding has improved ten fold due to white ball cricket to some jaw dropping levels at times.

In fact the all round skills developed in white ball cricket have in fact imo enhanced longer form cricket.

In years gone by would have been unthinkable for such a quality batsman as Root to play reverse scoop or batsman playing reverse sweeps, or a batsmen having the confidence to hit the first ball of a Ashes series for 4.

In fact I genuinely think, cricket is more
‘Proper’ now than it has ever been.

I think that because skills developed both, batting, bowling,fielding and athleticism of the players is light years ahead of when I started watching cricket.

And undoubtedly imo white ball cricket and skills needed in that format have enhanced the game of cricket as a whole.

The only danger which is a concern for all, is that it overtakes test cricket which none of us want
Click to expand...
Probably enhanced fielding more than any other aspect of the game. ''Proper",though, has been used in this context as meaning "traditional" Can't see why people who prefer the longer game should be ridiculed because of such a preference.
Frank_1976 said:
WE GOT ONE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Click to expand...
Pleased if I've enlightened your day
 
Parkside said:
Probably enhanced fielding more than any other aspect of the game. ''Proper",though, has been used in this context as meaning "traditional" Can't see why people who prefer the longer game should be ridiculed because of such a preference.

Pleased if I've enlightened your day
Click to expand...
Of course not fully agree, people have differing preferences from different formats that should be fully respected and none should be ridiculed in anyway.

However I do think at times using the word ‘proper’ as opposed to ‘traditional’ is slightly snobbery in tone the way it used at times

I do think and agree with you that longer format I.e test cricket should always treated as the priority in cricket, but undoubtedly think the white ball cricket skills developed have made the longer format more entertaining than its ever been.

The recent Ashes series a prime example
 
Voice of fair play said:
Of course not fully agree, people have differing preferences from different formats that should be fully respected and none should be ridiculed in anyway.

However I do think at times using the word ‘proper’ as opposed to ‘traditional’ is slightly snobbery in tone the way it used at times

I do think and agree with you that longer format I.e test cricket should always treated as the priority in cricket, but undoubtedly think the white ball cricket skills developed have made the longer format more entertaining than its ever been.

The recent Ashes series a prime example
Click to expand...
Yeh,as I've said traditional rather than proper would not be misinterpreted.
I thoroughly enjoyed " overs cricket" as it was once known but whilst some innovations in bowling have been introduced there is now an imbalance between bat and ball when scores of 200+ in 20 overs is a norm. Little skill in whacking 6s over short boundaries with a heavy bat.
There's clearly a market for it amongst youngsters so be it,just not for me.
 
Parkside said:
Yeh,as I've said traditional rather than proper would not be misinterpreted.
I thoroughly enjoyed " overs cricket" as it was once known but whilst some innovations in bowling have been introduced there is now an imbalance between bat and ball when scores of 200+ in 20 overs is a norm. Little skill in whacking 6s over short boundaries with a heavy bat.
There's clearly a market for it amongst youngsters so be it,just not for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah must admit, I don’t like it when sixes are hit when the batsman has not even hit it in the middle of the bat, as that does not feel right.

Especially when a bowler has outwitted a batsman yet it still sometimes goes for a six.

But I do really advocate the enhanced skills and variations that’s bowlers have learnt and fielders and batsman that as a whole white ball cricket has introduced.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top