Ihor Lewyk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:46 am
Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:55 am
Ihor Lewyk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:50 am
Which Yorkshire respondents have said that?
Yorkshire hat (mainly) on for this one.
Alex couldn't reasonably be expected to provide names. In theory we should be spoiled for choice in Yorkshire at all levels but our inter club infrastructure is not good and building up a player base is not easy.
OK. Maybe I should ask it another way. Why has Alex singled out Yorkshire respondents. (Plural) When he has checked the existing participating counties should not be affected as they have plenty of players available. Yorkshire may have plenty of players available but they may be below 120 strength at the moment. Does it need spelling out that shoving a youngster in against a 180+ player might actually do them more harm than good.
I'm not able to disclose the individual names of respondents, because none of those who submitted responses were informed that their individual responses were to be made public at the time they submitted them.
I "singled out" Yorkshire, I think only once unless I've missed something, because I was reporting that some of the big counties are having problems with the number of players in a team. Yorkshire is, by far, the most populous county in England. So if they can't recruit 16 players as easily as they'd like, what hope the smaller counties? Hence the proposals to reduce it.
I don't see it as "shoving a youngster in against a 180+ player" at all. Andrew is also probably right that Yorkshire ought to have rich pickings in this regard, so while I haven't looked the grades of your players up individually (and of course, in many cases because they're not on the ECF list which makes it harder), I confess that I rather thought Yorkshire wouldn't just have < 120 players available for selection in those areas.