We have had a go at predicting the teams LVCC position and how many runs Mags will get in the FPT but if you were Moxon setting individuals their objectives for the season ahead what would you be setting for the first teamers?

How many runs/wickets in the LVCC should each of the players be set?

The days of 1000 runs and even 50 wickets are a distant memory and it takes a stand out performance (Adil and Rudy last season) to achieve this. Injuries and test call ups then limit some players opportunities.

How about the following:

Over 1000 runs - Rudolph, Mags and Vaughan
Over 800 runs - Sayers, Gale and Lyth
Over 600 runs - Brophy, Rashid and Bresnan

Over 40 wickets - Hoggy, Rashid, Bresnan and Rana
Over 25 wickets - Patterson, Kruis

the problem for others (Pyrah, Hodgson, Wainwright etc) is that they may be restricted by selection policy.

If everyone can hit these targets, I'll be betting on us for the Championship. A great idea Triple Centurian. I wonder if the players set actual numerical targets? I bet Boycs did!

whilst cricket is a team game and we are measured by success of the team overall, it is made up of a collection of individual performances and some personal targets will give the players some accountability and responsibility to know what they are expected to do over the season.

I agree if they all deliver individually then the team should succeed but there should also be some slack in the targets set to still ensure team success but allow for some individual failure along the way.

i am sure Boycs set out to bat all day, every day and have an average over the season of over 100 - but then this was not only in his own interests but also the teams interests and it was the ianbility of others in the team to meet their personal targets at that time that meant the team failed!

Best you can, when you can. Look in the mirror at the end of the day and ask if you did all you could. Targets are hard to achieve if everyone else is achieving their's. If bowlers keep their target batsmen only bat once and if quicks do the job the spinners never get a bowl.
Just ask each player to look at himself at the end of each session. If he's happy, don't get complacant. If he's not happy then think about why and put it right next time.
No targets, just aims.

like the argument Kenny but then this allows it to be subjective and gives room for differences of views or misunderstanding - most players will always think they are doing better than the coach wants them to do and specific targets are measurable and don't allow any confusion.

Cricket is a team game that depends upon a series of individual battles and achievements.
I'm not sure how valid individual targets are - surely there are occasions when you might ask a batsman to sacrifice his average in pursuit of quick runs?
If we are to have targets - surely all your batsmen - Gale and Sayers especially - should regard 1,000 runs as their target? Why should their ambitions be any lower than Rudolph or Mags?

The coach is paid to be subjective. Thirty one day could be worth more than a century on another. Toiling in the sun and blocking an end as a bowler could be worth more than a 'five for' the next day. Targets are nice if you achieve the aim but sometimes an achievement is much less than the norm.
The mirror and honesty should always be the best gauge.

that when Lord Hawke set out to reward his players, he introduced "performance money". However, he decided against all objective measures such as so many runs or "x" number of wickets and determined that "performance money" would be awarded according to "performance in context". He alone, would be the purely subjective arbiter of the measure.

In my book, players can set their own targets a la Boycs. Institutional target setting is usually counter-productive.

For those with short memories, I invite you to ponder the second half of the 2005 season and the "nuclear" fallout which followed.