You can though, just at grade level.Zimco wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:10 amYeah thats my point perhaps he won't play for England perhaps he will but you can't know at 20. The longer players play in County the more they develop. Solely County players or even people like henriques still contribute to a strong system.
He would be good for Middlesex now as well based on his stats. He got players player of the year.
Stoinis developed when he went to melbourne, failed for many years in IPL and then had a great year. Cricket is not linear in development.
Domestic standard should be high.
I do agree on some level that a 7th team is needed, perhaps the ACT, purely to allow for the NSW offset that gets spread around the place. A micro issue that will address the imbalance where 1/3 of the talent is concentrated in 1/6 of a comp. something Tassie and to a smaller degree, SA has been doing.
ACT makes more sense. Someone like Ed Cowan was discarded a bit too early or even someone like Jemisi’s boy Greg Mail maybe should have got a longer run.
But if you take it to further extremes. What creates a better player?
A strong grade system flowing into a super tight domestic system of say, 4, or a bloated domestic system of say, 32?
The quality just won’t be there for the next step up.
There has to be a proven ratio of player numbers to domestic teams.
Cool quality really dripping in standard is a thing definitely observed elsewhere
AFLdropped a lot when they went from 16 to 18.
Hence why NRL dorm seem to want to do it and presumably, cricket.
There’s also alto of talk that BBL hasn’t got the player numbers