Atkins, Carson and Crocombe

Im not talking about the past im talking about the present, Rogers looks a talent so chuck him in if needed.

We received significant compensation from Hants effectively a transfer fee, you have to speak in fact mate we didnt just release him.

Do you honestly think losing Atkins is negative news when he was barely selected for the 2nd XI last year.

Whats the point of paying Curries wages then losing him for half the season to go and play for Scotland? Isnt it sensible to pay him for the time he will be around?

You need a mindset change, thinking positively will automatically make you look at that squad in a different light, when you think negatively you cannot see anything else. Dont allow yourself to be dragged down by the negative tone set on here you're better than that.

A young improving side narrowly missed out on promotion to Div 1 and if it was the same points for a draw last year as this year we would have gone up. A very raw new T20 side were 2 wins short of the QF's. Yes we were rubbish in the ODC but after last years development i see no reason why we cant kick on again.

This post needs bookmarking. We can discuss it at the end of the 2025 season and see how many trophies the 5 year plan has yielded.

And that’s not me being negative, just realistic.

Rookies play in the 2nd XI and only in exceptional circumstances (weight of runs/wickets or multiple injuries) will be moved up. If you are including them in the championship squad then you are admitting that the squad isn’t big enough.

Except that 4 are overseas players each contracted for half a season, 3 have white ball only contracts, 2 are centrally contracted/regularly injured and hardly ever play for us and 5 are teenagers. And Therea, just because a teenage darts player makes the final of a tournament it doesn’t mean that our young cricketers are ready to be competitive at a first class level!

How many championship games did Lenham play last year?

None.

The only way to build a strong team is to make sure that younger players only get in the side by forcing established players out, by producing performances just as good as the older player they want to replace.

If you try to do it the way we have, it never works.

The ones that are good enough will want to go to a division one county to prove themselves, and, inevitably, some like Atkins won't make it, either because of injury problems, or not good enough.

Players who are good enough will always force the older player out. It's got to be better if a batter makes his first team debut after scoring 3 centuries in the last six innings in the second eleven, thus demanding to be given a chance, rather than picked on 'promise and potential' when he may have only got one 50 in the last 12 second team innings.

Also, easier coming in to a side as the only young batter, or bowler, surrounded by nine, or ten others with bags of experience, who can help you find your feet. As a batter, it has to be easier coming in at 220-3 in the 60th over, with a guy on 50+ at the other end, rather than coming in at 10-3 in the fifth over, with the bowling attack still fresh and smelling blood, because the others are no more experienced than you are.

There's got to be a reason why no other county has ever done what Sussex have done. Maybe it's because they know it won't work.

The nonsense of 'They've all grown up together, and played age group cricket together, so they'll all make the grade, and never want to play for anyone else' was always nonsense. It was just a way of managing down peoples expectations for a few years, with a ready made excuse of 'Give them time' which they wouldn't have had if a more experienced side was losing.

You should always pick your strongest side, but it seems like senior players who knew what they were doing were quite intentionally treated badly, so they would move on, thus getting the wage bill down.