Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2016 9:33:47 GMT
What mistakes have been made since 2009 to get us to this point? And how could the Sussex hierarchy have allowed this to happen? To take the club and supporters from the heights of success to the depths of failure in just 7 years is an astonishing feat. One fundamental mistake was the lack of any executive supervision of Mark Robinson who was allowed to rule on cricketing matters without any oversight from the boardroom. As he increasingly lost the plot (as people always will when they do a job for too long without any oversight) his bizarre decision-making was allowed to go unchecked, hence we end up with the "rich legacy" which the board blindly continues to insist Davis is so lucky to have inherited. It wasn't just the playing staff over which Robinson was allowed to reign without supervision. Remember when the ECB first ruled that floodlights could be used to keep the players on the field in CC games when they would otherwise have gone off for bad light? Robinson decided that Sussex would opt out of using the floodlights for an entire season before disgruntled supporters forced the board to intervene and overturn his neanderthal decision the following season.Then there was his very public ranting and swearing at Durham players as they came off for the tea interval,which the board supinely declined to take any disciplinary action over and pretended had never happened. What kind of example did that set? Have these lessons been learnt and is Davis's decsion-making now subject to appropriate executive supervision? The 3-5 years promise suggests perhaps not. Or has his supervision and line management simply been handed over to Greenfield? What role does Barclay play in all this ? Nobody knows for the management structure Jim May has put in place is as clear as mud, while he himself continues to insist that as chairman he has no say or role to play in "cricketing matters". One reason for Kent's revival is that a pushy CEO and a willing sidekick as treasurer took control out of the hands of both the head coach and an amateur backroom committee. They made a lot of mistakes and bad calls along the way, but eventually they got a grip on things. They abolished the old cricket committee and drastically reduced the power that Graham Ford and Paul Farbrace had enjoyed, and when they appointed Jimmy Adams made it clear to him that he's not allowed to sneeze without first refering it upwards. It has taken five years and a lot of grief along the way (and a lot of brazen, expectation-managing spin about relying on homegrown players when Kent have actually done no such thing and have sneaked in as many imports as any other county). But they are now a competitive force again. |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Sept 3, 2016 11:26:55 GMT
Pants. Run-a-ball knocks suggest carelessness which is unacceptable but it's hard to blame the increasingly lame Davis for this one. We played the players we had and were seriously slaughtered. Just imagine how bad it would have been if we didn't have Shahzad and Robinson and had to play Garton and Archer - priceless.
No Wright, Joyce, Machan, Finch, Jordan, Garton, Archer or Whittingham, you can see why it happened. All eight of those would be in my first team.
For me Davis is destined to fail, he is soft and uninspiring. He was a poor player and it seems a poor seconds coach - or whatever the hell he was. But given that the roots of poorness are so very deep at the club I can see no improvement without drastic changes upstairs first. We're horrid at the moment, secretive, paranoid and narrow-minded. Sick really.
I will put out my plan for next season at the end of season summary. It will be economical, ruthless and brave all rolled into one. And absolutely nobody will agree with it.
It's time to stop blaming Robinson. He was horrendously wrong with many things and he did lose the plot for sure but he also left a good squad - one way better than has been shown.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 3, 2016 13:18:46 GMT
Taking the last 2 CC games as examples.
Robinson/Shahzad. 3/172 ( 44 overs) Average 57
Archer/Garton. 9/251. ( 61 overs ) Average 27
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2016 14:28:18 GMT
Agree with much of BM's assessment above. Believe the Board was complacent, far too friendly with Robbo, and seemingly mainly yes men. Cannot conceive of Jon Filby, based on his posts here, ever challenging the actions of the CEO or Robbo.
Shame Dave Brooks left, as he was good at man management, but also had a touch of steel when necessary. Zac, a very nice man, but seemingly, with a very limited background for the job. (Last two jobs in the commercial departments of counties, previously worked, I believe, in banking, but not clear on his actual role there). Little cricket experience, nor of running or growing organisations (unlike Dave who had the latter experience in spades). Very much doubt Zac asks challenging questions of the cricket department. Based on what I have heard from staff and the appointments he has made, I suggest a nice, principled man, dislikes confrontation, so lets promote the family inhouse, and those we know and are comfortable with.
Wonder to what extent the merger with the recreational game has harmed the professional game. Presumably Greenfield's salary ( the senior cricket manager, so good salary I guess), has come from revenues which might otherwise have been used by the professional game, yet listening to his interview his prime focus is the recreational game, or the long term 'pathway'. The club seems to have adopted, with pride, a no loans policy. But this is too simplistic a policy. Yes only use loans in restricted circumstances, and yes promote your own squad, but we are in professional sport, and sometimes needs must if we are to challenge. Nearly half the Board are appointees of the recreational game, and some of the others have close connections there. All good in theory, but has the focus of the club deviated too far from having a strong first team?
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 3, 2016 17:52:25 GMT
We're top of the table...... for extras!
Extras - until 3 Sep
b-lbs-w-nb
181-182-12-218-pen5 - 598 - Sussex (1908.1)
122-118-16-199 - 455 - Kent (1917.0)
57-183-24-162 - 426 - Essex (2008.4)
120-123-20-128 - 391 - Northants (1484.5)
118-136-15-111 - pens5 - 385 - Worcs (1940.4)
79-169-19-107 - 374 - Gloucs (1754.2)
81-127-38-120 - 366 - Glam (2022.1)
83-167-13-38 -pen5 - 306 - Leics (1448.1)
73-69-6-100 - 248 - Derbys (1641.2)
How to nip this in the bid straightaway? Deduct the extras from the players wages!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2016 18:27:25 GMT
Taking the last 2 CC games as examples. Robinson/Shahzad. 3/172 ( 44 overs) Average 57 Archer/Garton. 9/251. ( 61 overs ) Average 27 Good example. Let's compares bowling figures against a spineless Glamorgan batting-line up in which nobody averages over 40 and which has lost six CC matches this season with bowling figures against a stellar Kent batting unit in which the top six all average between 43 and 90, and which is second in the table and has only lost once all season (to table-toppers Essex). Why not compare Robinson and Shahzad's figures v Kent (3-172) with Whittingham and Jordan's figures (3-213) v Kent at Tunbridge Wells earlier this season? Such stats are utter meaningless. The unpalatable truth is that apart from Magoffin , Sussex's bowling this season has been "pants" (not a word I have ever used before but I borrowed it from our resident hipster fruadster). The evidence for Sussex's bowling being "pants" is in the fact that we're creaming ourselves over Garton and bemoaning an injury to a bowler who has so far taken just 11 wkts in five f/c matches at 38 runs apiece and has consistently gone at four runs an over. I'm not criticising him for that. Two wickets per match and an inability to concede less than four per over is pretty much what you would expect from a young bowler eagerly and enthusiastically learning his trade. But some peeps (is that the right term, fraudster?) are getting completely carried away with loading unrealistic expectations on promising young apprentices such as Garton, Whittingham and Archer by claiming they are already "better"" than the more exprienced seamers in the squad - which as yet they palpably are not. Frankly, that's the quickest way to destroy young careers before they've hardly begun. Please stop pressurising them! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2016 18:39:43 GMT
Chris Adams on Twitter being very diplomatic on Sussex's latest heroic disaster : "Difficult to put any words to that performance ..."
Glad to see that Griz has resisted the temptation to respond to the Sussex CEO's personal attack upon on him, though.
That's what they call dignity, Mr Tetchymasi!
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 3, 2016 19:23:44 GMT
Taking the last 2 CC games as examples. Robinson/Shahzad. 3/172 ( 44 overs) Average 57 Archer/Garton. 9/251. ( 61 overs ) Average 27 Good example. Let's compares bowling figures against a spineless Glamorgan batting-line up in which nobody averages over 40 and which has lost six CC matches this season with bowling figures against a stellar Kent batting unit in which the top six all average between 43 and 90, and which is second in the table and has only lost once all season (to table-toppers Essex). Why not compare Robinson and Shahzad's figures v Kent (3-172) with Whittingham and Jordan's figures (3-213) v Kent at Tunbridge Wells earlier this season? Such stats are utter meaningless. The unpalatable truth is that apart from Magoffin , Sussex's bowling this season has been "pants" (not a word I have ever used before but I borrowed it from our resident hipster fruadster). The evidence for Sussex's bowling being "pants" is in the fact that we're creaming ourselves over Garton and bemoaning an injury to a bowler who has so far taken just 11 wkts in five f/c matches at 38 runs apiece and has consistently gone at four runs an over. I'm not criticising him for that. Two wickets per match and an inability to concede less than four per over is pretty much what you would expect from a young bowler eagerly and enthusiastically learning his trade. But some peeps (is that the right term, fraudster?) are getting completely carried away with loading unrealistic expectations on promising young apprentices such as Garton, Whittingham and Archer by claiming they are already "better"" than the more exprienced seamers in the squad - which as yet they palpably are not. Frankly, that's the quickest way to destroy young careers before they've hardly begun. Please stop pressurising them! It's really not worth getting your knickers in a twist for bm. All im doing is stating the facts, I'm not putting pressure on anyone. The cold hard facts are that THIS SEASON Archer and Garton have bowled better than Robinson and Shahzad. And quite frankly if Archer can take the pressure of bowling at the Pakistanis and taking 4 wickets on debut and Garton can take the pressure of bowling at Sri Lanka A for the Lions and taking 4 wickets then I'm sure they can both cope with a 2nd division CC game! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2016 19:50:34 GMT
THIS SEASON Archer and Garton have bowled better than Robinson and Shahzad. If you say so. But it's hard to calibrate as we're merely talking degrees of crapness here, aren't we? Apart from Magoffin , you cannot deny that Sussex's bowling without exception has been utter "pants" all season. Your hero-worship of young apprentices trying to make the difficult step up to pro-level is well-meaning. But long experience tells me you are not helping them at all by demanding so much of them. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 3, 2016 20:11:19 GMT
I'm not hero worshiping anyone, all I ever said from the start was that Archer and Garton were better than Shahzad and Robinson this season. I never once said that our bowling had been good, it hasn't, but it's a damn sight better when Garton and Archer are playing!
|
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Sept 3, 2016 20:57:49 GMT
It's a reasonable point, not just with the bowlers, but with all our youngsters, some of them are doing OK, but nothing more. A successful academy isn't about how many local lads you have in the team, it should be judged by how many quality players it can produce. Anyone can stick a load of youngsters in the side, but if we're not competitive, what's the point. It's difficult, because we all want the youngsters to succeed, so often credit them as being further down the line than they really are. Good young batsmen like Duckett, Gubbins and Hameed, will have over a thousand championship runs, and are all averaging over fifty, the latter two in the top division. Our best young batsmen Finch, has 175 runs at 25. The bowlers are showing a little more promise, but they're not a Porter, or a Sam Curran. Hopefully they will continue to make progress, but it's not enough for them to just be " no worse than the seniors"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 6:47:38 GMT
It's a reasonable point, not just with the bowlers, but with all our youngsters, some of them are doing OK, but nothing more. A successful academy isn't about how many local lads you have in the team, it should be judged by how many quality players it can produce. Anyone can stick a load of youngsters in the side, but if we're not competitive, what's the point. It's difficult, because we all want the youngsters to succeed, so often credit them as being further down the line than they really are. Good young batsmen like Duckett, Gubbins and Hameed, will have over a thousand championship runs, and are all averaging over fifty, the latter two in the top division. Our best young batsmen Finch, has 175 runs at 25. The bowlers are showing a little more promise, but they're not a Porter, or a Sam Curran. Hopefully they will continue to make progress, but it's not enough for them to just be " no worse than the seniors" I think you have nailed it there, jonboy. The odd thing, though, is that we have one youngster who is "further down the line" in Ollie Robinson. He is the same age as Whittingham, yet he has already been written off as last year's hit by the NME faction in favour of bigging up newer kids on the block who have only played three or four matches and are struggling to stay fit for more than two games at a stretch. Good luck to all of these lads, whether it is Whittingham and Garton with the ball or Salt, Haines and Hudson-Prentice with the bat. But let's not confuse promise with achievement, because that actually harms rather than aids their development. |
|
