Pride or Prejudice?

Moderator: Assistant Moderator

Pride or Prejudice?

Joined: June 4th, 2015, 6:32 pm

August 14th, 2017, 8:45 am #1

The debate about Kolpaks made me think about how the game has developed.

In the period up to the 60s you played for one county for life with no central contracts or overseas players.

Then the 70s saw overseas players dominate games for counties and we were left behind with our pride in only picking Yorkshire born players admirable but unsuccessful.

Then we caught up with the times, swallowed our pride and tried to compete again on a level playing field.

Then central contracts and kolpaks came along but we also saw players move around more freely. Now we see it happening mid season as the norm.

So do we accept the modern game is changing and jump on the bandwagon to keep up or do we stick with our principles and try and keep a home grown team? If the latter do we accept that success may be a casualty as a result?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 11th, 2014, 2:11 pm

August 14th, 2017, 8:52 am #2

Think Yorkshire are a club that prides itself on producing home grown players that go onto international cricket. If this means we are not a successful as we might otherwise have been then so be it.
Clubs like Glamorgan, Hampshire, Lancashire and Derbyshire are trading hopefully short term success for the long term good of the English game which to me is not right and slightly soulless.

One overseas player is about right to me. Think ECB should look into financial penalties more of clubs who use the loopholes into the EU regulations to by pass this rule. Although I concede I don't know the legalities of this.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 6th, 2013, 7:57 pm

August 14th, 2017, 9:15 am #3

The debate about Kolpaks made me think about how the game has developed.

In the period up to the 60s you played for one county for life with no central contracts or overseas players.

Then the 70s saw overseas players dominate games for counties and we were left behind with our pride in only picking Yorkshire born players admirable but unsuccessful.

Then we caught up with the times, swallowed our pride and tried to compete again on a level playing field.

Then central contracts and kolpaks came along but we also saw players move around more freely. Now we see it happening mid season as the norm.

So do we accept the modern game is changing and jump on the bandwagon to keep up or do we stick with our principles and try and keep a home grown team? If the latter do we accept that success may be a casualty as a result?
We are a very proud county with very proud people within it. That said we are also desperate to win.

So that leads me to feel the right answer is a happy medium when it comes to Kolpaks - Or a balance in other words.

We have had Kolpaks before in the likes of Kruis. We also have a fine history of developing our own.

We are in development with the likes of Lees, Brook, Leaning, TKC, Coad etc all still young and one way or another finding their place.

My issue is we lack a lynchpin batsman in the absence of Ballance. We were hoping that would be Handscomb but it isn't.

In addition and I have said this for some time, Hodd is an admirable keeper but my view is these days you need a batting keeper. We have been so reliant on Bresnan (and Rash when available). It cannot go on forever.

To summarise. I think we have enough bowlers. I don't buy into Brooks being past it. In him, Coad, Bresnan, Plunkett we have a quality attack when available. There is enough in Fisher to persevere. Willey has been invested in and you sense may be left behind by England - So lets try and get the best from him.

Batting has worried me years. The overreliance on one batsman (Bairstow and now Ballance) is the big worry.

We need a proper batsman ideally at 3 and a keeper batsman in the top 6. The rest of the team I would hope to be Yorkshire born, raised or already signed from elsewhere and developed.

Brook Lyth Marsh? Ballance C Lees WK? Bresnan Rashid Plunkett (Willey) Brooks Coad
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 7th, 2014, 4:58 pm

August 14th, 2017, 9:16 am #4

The debate about Kolpaks made me think about how the game has developed.

In the period up to the 60s you played for one county for life with no central contracts or overseas players.

Then the 70s saw overseas players dominate games for counties and we were left behind with our pride in only picking Yorkshire born players admirable but unsuccessful.

Then we caught up with the times, swallowed our pride and tried to compete again on a level playing field.

Then central contracts and kolpaks came along but we also saw players move around more freely. Now we see it happening mid season as the norm.

So do we accept the modern game is changing and jump on the bandwagon to keep up or do we stick with our principles and try and keep a home grown team? If the latter do we accept that success may be a casualty as a result?
You can't penalise anyone for allowing people to legally work here, but you can reward counties for fielding home grown players, which already happens.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 29th, 2015, 12:25 pm

August 14th, 2017, 10:47 am #5

The debate about Kolpaks made me think about how the game has developed.

In the period up to the 60s you played for one county for life with no central contracts or overseas players.

Then the 70s saw overseas players dominate games for counties and we were left behind with our pride in only picking Yorkshire born players admirable but unsuccessful.

Then we caught up with the times, swallowed our pride and tried to compete again on a level playing field.

Then central contracts and kolpaks came along but we also saw players move around more freely. Now we see it happening mid season as the norm.

So do we accept the modern game is changing and jump on the bandwagon to keep up or do we stick with our principles and try and keep a home grown team? If the latter do we accept that success may be a casualty as a result?
Interesting debate which I have alluded to before ( probably in the aftermath of the shocking 2nd day against Essex last week ! )
As I said then Yorkshire are caught in the dilemma of sticking to their principles and home grown players at the expense of silverware or bringing in players to replace the obvious and potentially irreplaceable talent they produce, that in order to keep up with other teams and be competitive.
I say irreplaceable talent because you only have to look at the current ICC test batting rankings where ( to my surprise ) Bairstow is now SEVENTH not far behind Kohli and Rahane and of course Root is still second behind Steve Smith.
So my point on this is that a player of the quality of R or B are once in a generation if not more. To have two of them in the same team never mind the same generation is awesome. Add to this the talent of Ballance who I think could still be not far behind then it is clear to me that Yorkshire have no other serious homegrown batting option at the moment and should have recruited players from other counties ( such as Stoneman ) or Kolpaks ( maybe Stiaan van Zyl- Sussex ) in order to have any chance of staying competitive.
I would rather have this option of still competing for something rather than the relegation battle we now face over the next 4 CC games !!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 17th, 2013, 8:44 pm

August 14th, 2017, 12:44 pm #6

The debate about Kolpaks made me think about how the game has developed.

In the period up to the 60s you played for one county for life with no central contracts or overseas players.

Then the 70s saw overseas players dominate games for counties and we were left behind with our pride in only picking Yorkshire born players admirable but unsuccessful.

Then we caught up with the times, swallowed our pride and tried to compete again on a level playing field.

Then central contracts and kolpaks came along but we also saw players move around more freely. Now we see it happening mid season as the norm.

So do we accept the modern game is changing and jump on the bandwagon to keep up or do we stick with our principles and try and keep a home grown team? If the latter do we accept that success may be a casualty as a result?
But, Dave, we have just won two Championship titles with a largely homegrown team. And if we won with a bunch of Kolpaks and recruits from other counties, would it have felt the same? Would it have been WE that had won the titles?

I feel it wouldn't, and that's where the two sides of the debate differ. For me, I couldn't support a side that wasn't essentially Yorkshire. That's my objection to the whole franchise concept.

I watched van Zyl against England in South Africa, a player totally out of his depth at that level, nowhere near as good as Lyth, and probably (arguably) no better than Lees, Leaning, Rhodes and the like. We have repeatedly employed overseas players billed as 'world class', from Yuvraj Singh via Maxwell, Handscomb and now Sarfraz. Can he keep wicket better than Hodd? Not on recent evidence. Can he bat better? Who knows, but not so far.

Even Williamson, one of the greats of the modern game, never really produced the stats for Yorkshire. Finch, ironically, did better in the 4-day than in the T20.

I believe we should continue as before, with our own players + one top-class overseas + the occasional Kruis or Brooks or Hodd to cover short-term deficiencies. If that involves the occasional relegation, so be it. I would rather watch 10 Yorkshire lads in action at Bristol or Colwyn Bay than a team of mercenaries winning the first division.
Bowlers win matches
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 1st, 2005, 1:40 pm

August 14th, 2017, 12:50 pm #7

The debate about Kolpaks made me think about how the game has developed.

In the period up to the 60s you played for one county for life with no central contracts or overseas players.

Then the 70s saw overseas players dominate games for counties and we were left behind with our pride in only picking Yorkshire born players admirable but unsuccessful.

Then we caught up with the times, swallowed our pride and tried to compete again on a level playing field.

Then central contracts and kolpaks came along but we also saw players move around more freely. Now we see it happening mid season as the norm.

So do we accept the modern game is changing and jump on the bandwagon to keep up or do we stick with our principles and try and keep a home grown team? If the latter do we accept that success may be a casualty as a result?
If we join in the pursuit of international standard Kolpaks we are doing our bit to kill off Test cricket.

This will in turn remove the need for Root, Bairstow et al to be taken away from county cricket.

Hence they will return to Yorkshire and we won't need the Kolpaks.

And if you think that's a good result then my bum's a banjo!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 7th, 2017, 9:14 pm

August 14th, 2017, 9:35 pm #8

The debate about Kolpaks made me think about how the game has developed.

In the period up to the 60s you played for one county for life with no central contracts or overseas players.

Then the 70s saw overseas players dominate games for counties and we were left behind with our pride in only picking Yorkshire born players admirable but unsuccessful.

Then we caught up with the times, swallowed our pride and tried to compete again on a level playing field.

Then central contracts and kolpaks came along but we also saw players move around more freely. Now we see it happening mid season as the norm.

So do we accept the modern game is changing and jump on the bandwagon to keep up or do we stick with our principles and try and keep a home grown team? If the latter do we accept that success may be a casualty as a result?
I think we have to make a minimum one kolpac signing next year and an overseas player

This has to come in the form of a batsmen who will score 1000+ runs in the cc

Look at
Hampshire - 6 kolpac n overseas (Edwards, Irvine, bailey, berg, Abbott and roussow)
Essex - 3 kolpac n oversees (ten doeschate, amir and harmer)
Lancashire - 5 kolpac n overseas (chanderpaul, vilas, mclaren, Jarvis and Khan)

All the above teams are above us in the table and look far stronger on paper than us.
We cannot carry on scoring under 250 and expect to avoid defeat let alone win games
You either adapt or die
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 17th, 2013, 8:44 pm

August 15th, 2017, 7:38 am #9

The debate about Kolpaks made me think about how the game has developed.

In the period up to the 60s you played for one county for life with no central contracts or overseas players.

Then the 70s saw overseas players dominate games for counties and we were left behind with our pride in only picking Yorkshire born players admirable but unsuccessful.

Then we caught up with the times, swallowed our pride and tried to compete again on a level playing field.

Then central contracts and kolpaks came along but we also saw players move around more freely. Now we see it happening mid season as the norm.

So do we accept the modern game is changing and jump on the bandwagon to keep up or do we stick with our principles and try and keep a home grown team? If the latter do we accept that success may be a casualty as a result?
Using your criteria, Frank, we could say Yorkshire have used 5 born overseas (Ballance, Rafiq, Handscomb, Marsh, Sarfraz).
Bowlers win matches
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 6th, 2013, 7:57 pm

August 15th, 2017, 8:11 am #10

The debate about Kolpaks made me think about how the game has developed.

In the period up to the 60s you played for one county for life with no central contracts or overseas players.

Then the 70s saw overseas players dominate games for counties and we were left behind with our pride in only picking Yorkshire born players admirable but unsuccessful.

Then we caught up with the times, swallowed our pride and tried to compete again on a level playing field.

Then central contracts and kolpaks came along but we also saw players move around more freely. Now we see it happening mid season as the norm.

So do we accept the modern game is changing and jump on the bandwagon to keep up or do we stick with our principles and try and keep a home grown team? If the latter do we accept that success may be a casualty as a result?
In fairness though, with the exception of Berg are they all not overseas players who came here after their early development?

In the case of Marsh and/or Sarfraz, we can knly play 1 of those in the CC/ODI.

Rafiq came over here as a kid and is as Yorkshire as you or I.

Ballance came from Derbyshire as a teenager and as far as I am concerned is developed by our academy.

Some of the names mentioned above - Roussew through to Edwards to Chanderpaul to Villas are out and out foreign players who have no link or development to that County.
Quote
Like
Share