England vs Bangladesh

[Pevenseagull]

I wonder how they're getting on with analysing the match data.

 

[El Presidente]

 

[KZNSeagull]

Princethorpe College is a Catholic, co-educational, HMC independent day school

Oddly, most county sides are dominated by ex-public school pupils - usually benefiting from said scholarships - except for the players from Lancashire, Durham and Yorkshire who are mainly state school.

Yes, that's the point I was making: the test side is dominated by ex-public school pupils because county sides are.

I don't see it as a dodgy statistic - it's something that's pretty factual - there was research only two years ago to back this up
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...eters-come-from-uk-state-schools-8695905.html

I was looking at the make-up of the 1979 England side (which got to the final of the WC). Three out of that 11 were privately educated: I doubt if any England team will get that low again.

That's very interesting.

By way of comparison, I was looking at the make up of the current South Africa team to see how many went to a state school. I did not think it would be very high, but the only one who was privately educated was Kyle Abbott! The rest went to fee paying state schools - the school system here is different in that there are different categories of state school, some non fee paying, some fee paying. Maritzburg College, for example, where David Miller and KP went, is a fee paying state school, it is not what would be termed a Public School in the UK.

The major difference between SA and the UK, I would guess, is the amount of cricket played at these state schools. At my son's school, they have 2 practice sessions a week and usually a match on Saturday's and sometimes on Wednesday afternoons. So far this year, he has played 9 matches in 8 weeks and had 16 practice sessions. That is a lot of cricket and he is only 10. Compare that to when I was at school in the UK, we had 1 session a week where we either practiced or played a match. If you wanted to play more cricket, you joined the local village team. The coaching at school was poor, as it was at the village sides!

The standard of coaching at my son's school is very high - 2 teachers are accredited by Cricket South Africa for example and this is at a small semi-rural school in a town/village not much bigger than Ditchling. This is not unusual. They are not adverse to advancing talented kids above their age group - a boy in my son's team (U11) recently played 3 games for the school U13 side (the oldest age group at that school). 4 times a year the local schools hold cricket festivals, where they invite teams from all over to come and play. At these festivals will be coaches who are affiliated to the local provincial teams, who will spot the talent and take them off for coaching with the provinces. This is pretty much how all of the SA team (other than Imran Tahir who is from Pakistan), were discovered and developed. Most of them went on to play for the SA under 19 team.

In SA domestic cricket there are only 6 teams (the provinces). Decent talent at provincial level rarely get lost in the system - something that can happen in the UK with the 18 county teams. When they get to play, they get to play against the best regularly.

I don't know much about the setup in Australia, but I would suspect it is similar. The problem, I would guess, in the UK is that talented kids don't play enough, cannot find opportunities to progress and then get lost in the system somewhere. Either the counties are not looking for talent or only looking in certain places, but something is seriously wrong. Of course living in a hot country helps (2 terms a year they play cricket here - from mid September to mid March), in which case the UK needs more indoor facilities. I do not remember anyone from my old school playing for Sussex or even mid-sussex at cricket - they did in Football and Rugby where progressions seems better defined, but not cricket.

 

[OzMike]

Whatever happens I also do not want KP anywhere near the England team.
Never liked him and never will, we do not need him and his attitude.

 

[Pavilionaire]

There's a fair few in the England rugby union squad that went to public school and England are a competitive side - I don't think it makes any difference to be honest.

 

[Gwylan]

By way of comparison, I was looking at the make up of the current South Africa team to see how many went to a state school. I did not think it would be very high, but the only one who was privately educated was Kyle Abbott! The rest went to fee paying state schools - the school system here is different in that there are different categories of state school, some non fee paying, some fee paying. Maritzburg College, for example, where David Miller and KP went, is a fee paying state school, it is not what would be termed a Public School in the UK.

I can't quite get my head round the idea of a fee-paying state school. What's the difference between free schools and ones you pay for - why pay if they're the same?

The major difference between SA and the UK, I would guess, is the amount of cricket played at these state schools. At my son's school, they have 2 practice sessions a week and usually a match on Saturday's and sometimes on Wednesday afternoons. So far this year, he has played 9 matches in 8 weeks and had 16 practice sessions. That is a lot of cricket and he is only 10. Compare that to when I was at school in the UK, we had 1 session a week where we either practiced or played a match. If you wanted to play more cricket, you joined the local village team. The coaching at school was poor, as it was at the village sides!

The trouble is that these days you'll be lucky to play any cricket at school. Very few state schools play the game and, while it's possible to join a club, you'll be lucky to play every week. My son's club had six or seven games all season - the rest were cancelled because of a shortage of players.

That's what I meant by the bias towards private schools. It's not because I'm anti private schools but it strikes me that sporting talent is generally spread pretty evenly. I can't believe and don't believe that innate cricketing ability resides only in the well-off and we need to find a way to spot talent among the wider population, not just the seven percent

 

[Brovion]

There's a fair few in the England rugby union squad that went to public school and England are a competitive side - I don't think it makes any difference to be honest.

And on the other side of the coin I bet there aren't that many members of the England basketball team who went to public school. I went to a comprehensive (in the 1970s) and we didn't have a cricket pitch. I didn't pick up a cricket bat until I was 24.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I can't quite get my head round the idea of a fee-paying state school. What's the difference between free schools and ones you pay for - why pay if they're the same?



The trouble is that these days you'll be lucky to play any cricket at school. Very few state schools play the game and, while it's possible to join a club, you'll be lucky to play every week. My son's club had six or seven games all season - the rest were cancelled because of a shortage of players.

That's what I meant by the bias towards private schools. It's not because I'm anti private schools but it strikes me that sporting talent is generally spread pretty evenly. I can't believe and don't believe that innate cricketing ability resides only in the well-off and we need to find a way to spot talent among the wider population, not just the seven percent

There are 5 different types of State school in SA - the difference being how much funding they get from central government. This depends upon the level of poverty in the area that the school is. The size of those grants varies considerably, hence the need to raise funds by other means either via corporate sponsorship or payment of fees. All state schools follow the same curriculum but obviously, the better funded schools (almost always the fee paying ones) can afford the better teachers and they do get some leeway in how a subject is taught.
It is a mess and very confusing and is not helping the poorest areas/schools in the slightest as the teachers do not want to teach there as they get paid a pittance. People wonder why SA's basic education is ranked one of the worst in the world according the World Economic Forum. And the set books my son has to work with are appalling - at my son's school they do them because they have to but as an afterthought to carry on getting funding, rather than as the main tool for education. In the poorer schools, they will be the only books that they have. It's pretty shambolic really!

I agree that they have to spot the best talent no matter where they are schooled in England. That is the fundamental problem - if the kids are not playing enough and the counties are not looking in the right areas, then how are they going to create a team for the future. No wonder the England setup has to take in SA rejects, Irish, whoever they can find!