|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 28, 2016 15:07:39 GMT
A rather rambling interview with Carl, quite a lot of it being more concerned with his continuing role as fielding coach to the first team and as a specialist fielding coach for England squads at various levels. On the Academy Director's role he comes over quite well without actually saying anything significant or fresh about what he proposes to do, and it isn't at all clear from this how he will report in to Keith Greenfield. He says, rightly, that the Academy Director role is about developing elite players, but also about ensuring that they have sustained careers, offering Chris Nash as an example. He also makes it clear that the job is about talent-spotting within Sussex as "Sussex have to produce their own cricketers and can't afford to keep buying in stars". I'm sure he is very professional but this interview seems to heighten the overall impression of the structure as one of muddling through, with some potential overlaps and contradictions. I hope I'm wrong and perhaps the long-awaited batting coach will provide some dynamism and fresh ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 16:07:46 GMT
Are they rearranging the deck chairs at the Cromwell Road end, too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 28, 2016 16:56:53 GMT
Hhs,
Having spent the last month researching Surrey and their Academy youngsters this, sadly, is where Sussex have underachieved in recent years. They are not bringing enough Academy players through who then reach the top level.
I remember talking to the Club President last season - a man who has worked so hard behind the scenes in setting up opportunities for Sussex youngsters to develop and grow into professionals; the man who was the driving force behind creating the 'Blackstone Academy'; and I asked him why so few have made it in recent years given the huge efforts. He shrugged his shoulders and commented he didn't have an answer.
Sussex have let go of a number of players recently including Jackson, Gatting, Thornley, Crane and Liddle. And of the youngsters today who have the potential to reach the very top, perhaps, only Machan comes to mind with Brown having his first good season last year at the age of 26. Beer is still dithering along with Wells and Hatchett and then we have a gap to Finch and Hudson-Prentice followed by the new boys Garton, Salt and Whittingham.
One would suggest Carl Hopkinson has the most important job of all in pinpointing what the problem is and turning things around. Is it simply poor coaching methods, for example? What has gone wrong?
Meanwhile, Surrey are enjoying a renaissance because of their youngsters. The likes of Ansari, the Curran brothers, Burns, Roy, Dunn, Sibley, Dernbach, Harinath, etc.. they trip off the tongue like a conveyor belt of excellence. Sadly, Sussex's conveyor system broke down some 5 years ago after the likes of Prior, Kirtley, RMJ, Yardy, Nash and Lewry emerged.
I interviewed Phil Everest back in July 2012 who coaches the Surrey U15s alongside Alec Stewart's older brother Neil. Both the past and present Surrey success is primarily down to him. His experience at spotting youngsters from the age of 12 is astonishing. Everest was shouting about Ansari when he first saw him play in an U12 game. He has been responsible for helping through an extraordinary number of future famous cricketers. They read like an anthology of supreme excellence. Alec Stewart, Mark Butcher, Graham Thorpe, Alistair Brown, Ashley Giles, Adam and Ben Hollioake, the Bicknell Brothers, Michael Carberry, Stuart Meaker, RHB, Jade Dernbach... need one go on. What Sussex desperately need is their own Phil Everest.
Where Surrey went wrong is they began not trusting their Academy and went shopping elsewhere. Dilly-dallying between the two divisions for 10 years made them realise they must go back to basics. Which they did and now the general opinion is, Surrey have a squad which could dominate county cricket once again over the forseeable future.
Unfortunately for Sussex, unless they get the scouting and coaching right, their Academy will continue to underachieve. Perhaps, of all the recent musical deckchair changes, Hopkinson has the most important role.
When I asked Everest what the primary talent/ability he looked for in a youngster he replied, "The desire and determination to succeed. The mental side of a player is the most important part. Cricketing ability is less than half of it."
Now compare Prior with Brown; Adams with Wells; Mushtaq with Beer; RMJ with Finch. Imho, it is the mental side that has gone awry and that surely is down to the nature of the present coaching.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 17:30:59 GMT
Agree. Acadamy is biggest problem and also agree it is not ablity but up top is the problem. I still think Gatting was the best 17/18 year old I have seen and once County got hold of him there was no improvement. The most talented few years ago was Machan and just when he was breaking thru he was replaced by Cachopa after 2 good 2nd team games. Salt is now the most gifted of the youngsters but like last few years have no faith in coaching to take him to level required. As for Beer years on staff with no improvement. Cant even get 5fers in club cricket. In fact Horshams other leg spinner is far better.
|
|
|
|
Post by surreysteve on Jan 28, 2016 18:33:04 GMT
My son will be 15 next week. The last 2 years he has not got through to Sussex having done trials he is a leg spinner. Last year he played for the Sussex Spartans but in some of the games he only batted and another game he would bowl and not bat. All the matches were one day games 50 overs per innings. We received a letter from CH yesterday saying he has been selected for the Spartans this year but my son has decided not to bother.
You pay a lot of money for 8 training sessions which are 2 hours of nets per session then you play 5 matches against the East of the County and a Guernsey side. The problem is in these games a squad of 14 is selected so some boys dont bat and some dont bowl. CH says in the letter that boys doing well in these fixtures may get a call up to Sussex but they dont get a good enough chance to prove themselves. Being a Surrey fan he probably would have had a better chance with them!
He will just concentrate playing for Worthing now. Sussex dont have a good record with leg spinners anyway with Mason Crane slipping through the net and the way Beer was treated in 4 day cricket last season when Sussex got Burgoyne and Dockerell on loan who were useless when Beer would have done better.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jan 29, 2016 12:59:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 29, 2016 13:04:48 GMT
There might be no money for new players but the coaches are coming thick and fast now. Hot on the heels of the appointments or elevations of Davis, Greenfield and Hopkinson, here is Mike Yardy about to enter a new role on charge of the Under 17s. Lovely to see the continuity and Yardy is a genuinely nice chap but is there anywhere a promise of new ideas, of something outside of the "Sussex way"? www.sussexcricket.co.uk/news-1/coaching-yardy-named-head-coach-of-sussexs-under-17s |
|
|
|
Post by freddy838 on Jan 29, 2016 13:19:01 GMT
At least Yards has a record of playing international cricket, a whole career in first class cricket, a decent skipper and got every ounce out of his ability. Of course it doesn't always transfer itself into being an excellent coach but he could offer the youngsters a lot in their development.
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jan 30, 2016 17:06:43 GMT
Yardy has plenty of talent work with Haines, Ward, Billings, Oxley, Gordon, Twine and Smith plus the hugely promising leg spinner Will Collard who he will also see at Hurstpierpoint College.
Probable starting XII: Haines (c), Ward, Billings (+), Lincoln, Clark new, Orr (reserve keeper) new, Oxley, Gordon, Twine, Smith, Collard, Rattle
Seamers: Gordon, Smith, Twine
Spinners: Collard, Oxley, Rattle
Reserves: Atkins (Seamer), Heath (Seamer), Hobbs (Seamer), Lenham (Batsman), Walker (Batsman), Wood (Batsman).
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Feb 1, 2016 15:38:35 GMT
Hhs,
“…is there anywhere a promise of new ideas, of something outside of the "Sussex way"?
Creating a mentality at a club where those you choose for important positions are from a similar mould ie. think similarly, see life in a comparable way, and agree with the consensus and tow the line, can be very successful when things are going well; but if the situation changes and the county require a new approach and energy, a set of fresh ideas, of thinking out of the box and entrepreneurial enterprise, then the mindset can be severely tested.
Seeking succession within a club is about discovering people who are able and willing to be shaped into a particular outlook. When Sussex describe themselves as a "family" what I suggest they mean is, it is a family for those who do not confront or criticise the consensus.
Meanwhile, in return for this loyal thinking, the staff are rewarded with 'jobs for the boys’, musical deckchairs and lengthy employment. Whilst, the most patriotic supporters are offered communication access to players and the coaching staff. But, if you hold a different mindset to us and may disagree with our viewpoints, sorry, you are not part of our family ethos.
This is not a criticism for the approach has worked well in the past. It's how it is. It is the Sussex way. And this attitude can be seen in many different walks of life, from politics to the church. And why Chris Adams has little chance of being given the batting coach job because he doesn't fit in to the present Sussex mould; for it doesn't matter how good he might be at the job. And, perhaps why, the club have been extensively advertising for the post because they know they must find someone who is as good as Adams, otherwise some Members may “kick-off” like they did after relegation last season.
So long as Sussex are successful does it matter what mindset runs the club? Supporters want to see trophies, they want success. Give them that and everyone is happy.
And why I have suggested before, 2016 is a pivotal year. If Sussex gain promotion, show more overall consistency in the OD formats and reach a semi-final or even final, then ‘long live the hive’. If not, those who share a different mentality and outlook, may become increasingly unhappy and we ‘could’ eventually end up, down the road, perhaps, with a repeat of 1997. For, by simply shifting around the present staff members into other club positions, a little like feng shui, will sufficient new and dynamic energy be created to revitalise the much-needed improvements on the field?
County clubs often harbour a particular and similar psychology. And only when things go badly wrong, can this be changed, usually through a boardroom coup. A good example is Derbyshire where after years of dismal underachieving Christopher Grant with his more dynamic, hedge-fund City, forward-thinking outlook, managed to Captain the helm. Again with Leicestershire after chewing on the wooden spoon for various years, desperation allowed a fresh, younger and more energetic thinker in Wasim Khan to take over.
One of the hierarchy abuses in county cricket is that when the Chairman is chosen, it is a boardroom decision only. Members have no say in the matter which allows the same mindset to continue its succession. A vulnerability that Sussex have is the age of the Board’s members. There is little new blood emerging and when Jim May eventually steps down as Chairman, it will be interesting to see who takes his place.
To repeat I am not criticising the mentality. It is what it is. Staff members I have met are admirable people who genuinely care for the club and work hard to make it a success. The recent and on-going achievements off-the-field are exciting to watch. Sussex CCC has many positive aspects to applaud.
My one criticism is this.
On occasions, a ‘hive’ must find the strength and confidence to employ people who are different to them. This not only brings new energy and a fresh perspective but actually strengthens the mindset by broadening its horizons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 17:35:20 GMT
Interesting last post. Did members kick off after relegation? If they did it didn't seem to make any difference. Good to see you consider on going achievements off the field are exciting to watch. I think just the opposite.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 1, 2016 18:10:13 GMT
Interesting last post. Did members kick off after relegation? If they did it didn't seem to make any difference. Good to see you consider on going achievements off the field are exciting to watch. I think just the opposite. Yes fristoner, many did and this thread ( unofficialsussexccc.freeforums.net/post/14058/thread) covers what was asked, and what kinds of answers were offered, at the Members Forum that followed the Special General Meeting last autumn. There wasn't a sense of satisfactory resolution then, when Robinson was still notionally in charge, and there isn't now, although looking back at impressions given then, I still think that the pairing of Davis and Wright could work well. The problem is that Davis cannot be his own man; must always go to Greenfield for money and hope that his views will carry the force of argument. Should members be more vocal? Yes, of course they should, and so should other spectators who contribute to the club through gate money, catering, merchandise and so on. Sussex is positioning itself as a community benefits organisation and stressing the importance of the recreational side of the game as well as the professional sporting entertainment business. To do so effectively it needs to listen to its users and demonstrate that it has learned from this and is improving based on that feedback. It is not going to be easy for them to balance the different points of view and work out which of these conflicting needs will take priority. That conflict has always existed to some extent, but the nature of Greenfield's appointment puts him right at the centre of the scales. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Feb 1, 2016 18:37:49 GMT
Interesting last post. Did members kick off after relegation? If they did it didn't seem to make any difference. Good to see you consider on going achievements off the field are exciting to watch. I think just the opposite. Yes fristoner, many did and this thread ( unofficialsussexccc.freeforums.net/post/14058/thread) covers what was asked, and what kinds of answers were offered, at the Members Forum that followed the Special General Meeting last autumn. There wasn't a sense of satisfactory resolution then, when Robinson was still notionally in charge, and there isn't now, although looking back at impressions given then, I still think that the pairing of Davis and Wright could work well. The problem is that Davis cannot be his own man; must always go to Greenfield for money and hope that his views will carry the force of argument. Should members be more vocal? Yes, of course they should, and so should other spectators who contribute to the club through gate money, catering, merchandise and so on. Sussex is positioning itself as a community benefits organisation and stressing the importance of the recreational side of the game as well as the professional sporting entertainment business. To do so effectively it needs to listen to its users and demonstrate that it has learned from this and is improving based on that feedback. It is not going to be easy for them to balance the different points of view and work out which of these conflicting needs will take priority. That conflict has always existed to some extent, but the nature of Greenfield's appointment puts him right at the centre of the scales. That's all very well, but I fear that the club's focus will be so diffused (or wide-angle, to continue the photography analogy) that there won't be enough emphasis on the success of the 1st XI and the drive for promotion in 2016. OK, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but are we going to suffer short term disappointment whilst the long term community approach is being nurtured? In my experience, successful enterprises are usually those that have an outward looking culture, not those fixated on navel-gazing and internal re-organisation. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Feb 1, 2016 21:42:09 GMT
Yes fristoner, many did and this thread ( unofficialsussexccc.freeforums.net/post/14058/thread) covers what was asked, and what kinds of answers were offered, at the Members Forum that followed the Special General Meeting last autumn. There wasn't a sense of satisfactory resolution then, when Robinson was still notionally in charge, and there isn't now, although looking back at impressions given then, I still think that the pairing of Davis and Wright could work well. The problem is that Davis cannot be his own man; must always go to Greenfield for money and hope that his views will carry the force of argument. Should members be more vocal? Yes, of course they should, and so should other spectators who contribute to the club through gate money, catering, merchandise and so on. Sussex is positioning itself as a community benefits organisation and stressing the importance of the recreational side of the game as well as the professional sporting entertainment business. To do so effectively it needs to listen to its users and demonstrate that it has learned from this and is improving based on that feedback. It is not going to be easy for them to balance the different points of view and work out which of these conflicting needs will take priority. That conflict has always existed to some extent, but the nature of Greenfield's appointment puts him right at the centre of the scales. That's all very well, but I fear that the club's focus will be so diffused (or wide-angle, to continue the photography analogy) that there won't be enough emphasis on the success of the 1st XI and the drive for promotion in 2016. OK, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but are we going to suffer short term disappointment whilst the long term community approach is being nurtured? In my experience, successful enterprises are usually those that have an outward looking culture, not those fixated on navel-gazing and internal re-organisation. I think you are right, and that is the biggest challenge for Sussex and for Greenfield; not just whether we have enough fast bowlers but whether we can respond to the changes around us quickly and effectively. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 21:53:10 GMT
So long as Sussex are successful does it matter what mindset runs the club? Yes, because the current mindset that values 'continuity' over fresh thinking means that Sussex will always be doomed to long periods of stagnation and decline between the rare bouts of success. You don't need Trotskyite permanent revolution with a 1997-style uprising every winter. But you do no need a constant churn of fresh blood, innovative ideas and new personnel, otherwise you go as long as Sussex currently has done without winning a darned thing - and end up in a spiral of decline which requires another Piggot/May/Marlar style revolution to break out of the malaise, by overthrowing the once envigorating regime that after 20 years of Jim May has grown stale and complacent... |
|
