To be fair, Salisbury took on a poisoned chalice. When you are faced with a spate of injuries while being
told by your CEO that youngsters are the way forward, your hands are somewhat tied.
Unfortunately, lots of previous up-talking which then ends as an uncompetitive shambles has not helped
his cause. Yet, who would want to take over his job given the present circumstances? Why, for example,
would Adams want the reins now when he already has a satisfying and unstressful job at Seaford College.
It makes no sense.
A fully fit Sussex team is a competitive team. We all agree. Whether they would still be good enough to
win games consistently is another matter.
As to criticism of Salisbury's management skills, again I query. When Andrew first came to Sussex, he was
taken aback by the poor financial status of the Club and quickly realised that without Spen Cama's money,
Sussex might not exist. It was Jim May after becoming Chairman who primarily chose to keep the players'
salaries relatively high, even though the Club could not afford them. He believed, and quite rightly so, that
a decent wage would attract the top players to stay.
As part of Andrew's cost-cutting, salaries, I believe, have been cut quite substantially, and why our top
cricketers departed for a better wage elsewhere. It's a no-brainer to join a Division 1 side offering a
higher salary, surely?
If there is anyone to blame it must be Rob Andrew. He chose the present coaches, kept Greenfield in his
position, hemmed in the money and, most importantly, decided to go on this somewhat suicidal path of
a five-year youngsters plan.
You cannot account for injuries, agreed, but a contingency plan should have been put in place for such an
eventuality given how prone youngsters are to injury as their physiques must develop to the rigours of
county cricket.
So, no, I feel it unfair to make Salisbury the scapegoat. He is doing the best he can given the very difficult
situation he finds himself in.
