My good mate Brian Bakker says: "I watched a Pro20 game today (the ancient Warriors against the geriatric Cobras) and realised why SA cricket is in trouble: there is very little depth. And the primary reason for that is that our local competitions seem to be more about giving players testimonial seasons than about developing the game. I think we should follow the IPL's lead and impose a quota system on domestic 20-over cricket; not a racial quota system, an age-based one. Force every team to have two under 19 players, two under-21 players and two under-23 players in the match eleven. That leaves five spots for players over 23 and should give our youngsters more opportunity to force their way into first-class contention. It may also go some way to slowing the exodus to county cricket and Blighty. Your thoughts?"
My response is: I watched the game and thoroughly enjoyed it, not least because my team won. On a difficult pitch, the skill of the bowlers was tested to the full.
But let's test Brian's assertion: the average age of the Warriors was 30,09 and that of the Cobras 29,09. Jon-Jon Smuts was the youngest of the Warriors at 22, Michael Rippon the youngest Cobra at 19.
The greatest malady affecting Australian cricket has been the logjam of aging cricketers preventing talented youth from emerging, and it has resulted in the current Oz mess. Should we (can we) legislate against this? Thoughts appreciated!
Pic: Claude Henderson, the oldest player on view last night.
Posts
1 comment:
Interesting that the stats bear me out:
"...the average age of the Warriors was 30,09 and that of the Cobras 29,09. Jon-Jon Smuts was the youngest of the Warriors at 22, Michael Rippon the youngest Cobra at 19."
Now think about this: if SA had to select an "A side" tomorrow and a similar restriction (two under-19, two under-21 and two under-23 players in the match eleven) were imposed, How many players with first class experience could be select?
brian aka bokke
Post a Comment