Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > Other International Teams
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 23rd July 2007, 14:46   #21
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
I believe I made some constructive points.
I don't believe that makes my statement any less true.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2007, 12:42   #22
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
I don't believe that makes my statement any less true.

I slightly disagree, my intention in this thread has been to make constructive and informative comments about SA cricket. If negative ones about *****are made along the way, so be it.
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2007, 12:45   #23
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
I slightly disagree, my intention in this thread has been to make constructive and informative comments about SA cricket.
Bull. Total and utter bull. Occasionally you do make constructive and informative comments about SA. Whether this is just by a random coincidence or intention I can't tell, but inevitably you post some drivel to slag off SA, the UCB or, more likely, Smith and usually based on some fantasy notion rather than any fact. That is by intention as its wind-up result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
If negative ones about *****are made along the way, so be it.
As I said before, it's a pity. Another thread ruined.

Last edited by slop : 24th July 2007 at 12:54.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2007, 13:35   #24
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,112
In relation to someone making the point that KP may not have become the player he is had he not moved, do you believe that some of the other players in the SA system would be better if exposed to better?/different coaching in for example, England?
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2007, 14:58   #25
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
In relation to someone making the point that KP may not have become the player he is had he not moved, do you believe that some of the other players in the SA system would be better if exposed to better?/different coaching in for example, England?
Of course, that sort of exposure cannot hurt and probably helps. I think we now send some of the more promising juniors to training camps in Aus too. Saying that, several players have been exposed and not improved enough - like Ackerman - and some have not played county cricket and gone on to be very good players - Gibbs (I think).

To make a call on KP is impossible since he has so much natural talent, he could have become brilliant playing for Bermuda. And who knows how he would have done if he had been exposed to both county cricket and first class SA cricket rather than just county - like Hall and Smith? KP could have played both without choosing to play for England.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2007, 15:06   #26
Rey
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Castleford
Team(s): Yorkshire
Posts: 14,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
In relation to someone making the point that KP may not have become the player he is had he not moved, do you believe that some of the other players in the SA system would be better if exposed to better?/different coaching in for example, England?
That goes for any player in any system. At Yorkshire, we had several players go to South Africa, India and Australia, and that's just last winter.
__________________
"He has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered his soul."
Rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2007, 23:41   #27
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,112
This might help retain players; or rather the intention is there to help with this.


http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/C...152713,00.html
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2007, 04:31   #28
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,112
And further evidence that it's going to be harder to attain a kolpak status.

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?s...4032853C745370
and
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?s...4032853C745370

Last edited by Midnight : 25th July 2007 at 04:36.
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2007, 09:42   #29
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
This might help retain players; or rather the intention is there to help with this.


http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/C...152713,00.html
Unfortunately with guys like Trott and Van Jaarsveld the pound is far more lucrative. The current UCB contract system is already quite financially rewarding yet both chose to forgo this and move to England. As for the clamping down, it's good that the intention is there, it's hard however to see that it is feasible, legally.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2007, 10:12   #30
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
Unfortunately with guys like Trott and Van Jaarsveld the pound is far more lucrative. The current UCB contract system is already quite financially rewarding yet both chose to forgo this and move to England. As for the clamping down, it's good that the intention is there, it's hard however to see that it is feasible, legally.
It is feasible legally for example if the UCB writes into its contracts that SA/franchise cricketers must be available to report to international duty as required. Under this system, anyone who likes to expedite his international career for either cricket or financial reasons isn't obligated to sign the contract. But as a body, the UCB has ever right to attach certain conditions to it. In our Australian Rules competition, occasionally there have been court challenges to certain rules/judgements, but the chief judges have basically ruled that sporting bodies have a right to frame rules providing they are fair and flexible within reason. Hence bodies have employed lawyers to draw them up and basically regulations which might appear a tad unfair to the average employee (outside of football) have not been challenged because this would be unsuccessful.

The way cricket in SA has been run to date, the regulations (apart from the slightly restricting quota system) have been in favour of the employee. A Vaughn van Jaarsveld for example, can ply his trade in SA, and if he's dissatisfied with his rate of progress (in your selectors' eyes) run off to England in a huff and earn bigger dollars. What you're now stipulating is that a provincial player has to guarantee that he's available for SA duty where required. So for eg. VVJ would have had to play for your emerging players' squad and not go to England to play county cricket unless permission was granted. This seems fair, as you're investing money in your players and they should not be allowed to 'use' your system to launch a career in England. Had VVJ not shown promise at junior and provincial level in SA, it would be hard for him to get a ticket into the English system, especially as many of the recommendations come by 'word of mouth'.

I've stated before that I believe that some of your youngsters are impatient, but this could be largely because of the KP experience. What they should realise is that the majority of them won't be KPs and they should bide their time. Ultimately it may even benefit their cricket to wait a bit longer. You have to wonder if AB has suffered a bit from such early exposure. He'll probably get there in the end but has been forced to suffer some unnecessary hiccups along the way.

The extra money players can earn in SA might also help retain some but as you suggest, if the lucrative lure of the pound proves too great, there's nothing much that can be done. If they're sheer mercaneries, they may not be the greatest team players anyway.

In summary though, I doubt there's much more your board can do to stem the tide of players moving, which as I've stated before, believe is a detrimental trend in world cricket.

At least it shows they've identified it as a problem and it's a step in the right direction.
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2007, 10:46   #31
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
I hadn't clicked that the new stipulation applied to players that had signed up regional contracts rather than just the national contracts, which is pretty obvious now that I think about it. The legal feasibility I was questioning was on the UK (i.e. EU) side.

Even with the stipulation though, guys like VVJ could still sign up, make a name for themselves and fly off to England once their contracts are up. VVJ has already given up on playing for any SA team anyway. VVJ is very young, chances are the UCB would have given him permission to take up a kolpak contract as they have with Rudolph as the county experience can be good.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2007, 11:46   #32
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
I hadn't clicked that the new stipulation applied to players that had signed up regional contracts rather than just the national contracts, which is pretty obvious now that I think about it. The legal feasibility I was questioning was on the UK (i.e. EU) side.

Even with the stipulation though, guys like VVJ could still sign up, make a name for themselves and fly off to England once their contracts are up. VVJ has already given up on playing for any SA team anyway. VVJ is very young, chances are the UCB would have given him permission to take up a kolpak contract as they have with Rudolph as the county experience can be good.
Your point if valid but it's still a risk for young players to 'burn their bridges' with the SA board and punt on success in England. As pointed out, not many will end up as successful as KP and may at times find it harder to carve out a career there than in SA. In theory a player could be left without a country if the English counties refused to sign up a player (and they're under no obligation) and the SA board refused as well on the grounds that the player had already reneged on their contract offer to ply their trade overseas. With the counties tightening up rules surrounding overseas players, and the ECB making noises about there being too many kolpak players already, and concerned about their effects on the development of their youngsters, a young SA player 'doing a KP' could be risking his international, and indeed cricket future.

What's also interesting is that the SA board could win a case such as the VVJ one if it was a matter of him becoming a kolpak because of restraint of trade. If the ICC was smart it could set up the rules this way. How exactly has VVJ's trade been restrained given that he was picked for junior and emerging teams? The quota system couldn't be used as an argument because on prima facie value, no 'quota' player has been keeping him out. The ICC could for example, have a ruling in place that makes qualifying for another country once a player has played at under 19 level for his native one, a very onerous excercise, with the exception being where one's trade has been restrained. As mentioned, players such as VVJ would then have no recourse to the Kolpak ruling.
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2007, 12:03   #33
RLS
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): South Africa, Cape Cobras, Stormers
Posts: 1,769
Back to the tourney, SA crushed the thus far unbeaten NZ 'A' team. The two will now play in the final:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/co...ml?CMP=OTC-RSS
RLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2007, 12:07   #34
RLS
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): South Africa, Cape Cobras, Stormers
Posts: 1,769
And the previous game I missed:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/austr...ry/303400.html
RLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2007, 12:19   #35
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
Your point if valid but it's still a risk for young players to 'burn their bridges' with the SA board and punt on success in England. As pointed out, not many will end up as successful as KP and may at times find it harder to carve out a career there than in SA. In theory a player could be left without a country if the English counties refused to sign up a player (and they're under no obligation) and the SA board refused as well on the grounds that the player had already reneged on their contract offer to ply their trade overseas. With the counties tightening up rules surrounding overseas players, and the ECB making noises about there being too many kolpak players already, and concerned about their effects on the development of their youngsters, a young SA player 'doing a KP' could be risking his international, and indeed cricket future.
Makes sense, I'm just not sure it's that far from what's happening now. VVJ had the county contract in the bag before he left SA so he wasn't risking anything and wouldn't be under the new system. Players like Claude Henderson are happy to forgo playing for SA (he was asked back) even without the option to play for England which he will never do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
What's also interesting is that the SA board could win a case such as the VVJ one if it was a matter of him becoming a kolpak because of restraint of trade. If the ICC was smart it could set up the rules this way. How exactly has VVJ's trade been restrained given that he was picked for junior and emerging teams? The quota system couldn't be used as an argument because on prima facie value, no 'quota' player has been keeping him out. The ICC could for example, have a ruling in place that makes qualifying for another country once a player has played at under 19 level for his native one, a very onerous excercise, with the exception being where one's trade has been restrained. As mentioned, players such as VVJ would then have no recourse to the Kolpak ruling.
Did VVJ actually argue that he was being restricted? As you say, he clearly wasn't. The UCB even made it clear that he was on their radar for the future. The ICC could change existing rules to cover U19 and A appearances though I imagine that could be challenged in some countries, most likely England under EU laws.

What I'm wondering is whether the stipulation for a Kolpak to forgo playing for his country isn't legally challengable. Surely this in itself is a restraint of trade. The whole point of the Kolpak ruling is to allow people (in this particular case, sportsmen) from countries with work agreements with the EU to work freely in Europe and, to me, this stipulation seems like a clear violation of that. A player probably won't challenge that as this will create waves with his employer, but maybe the UCB could.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2007, 12:21   #36
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLS View Post
Back to the tourney, SA crushed the thus far unbeaten NZ 'A' team. The two will now play in the final:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/co...ml?CMP=OTC-RSS
It's looking good isn't it? It seems like a lot of the players are contributing to the wins so far - Bodi, Botha, Philander, Ontong, De Wet. A good list of names for the future.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2007, 14:08   #37
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
Makes sense, I'm just not sure it's that far from what's happening now. VVJ had the county contract in the bag before he left SA so he wasn't risking anything and wouldn't be under the new system. Players like Claude Henderson are happy to forgo playing for SA (he was asked back) even without the option to play for England which he will never do.



Did VVJ actually argue that he was being restricted? As you say, he clearly wasn't. The UCB even made it clear that he was on their radar for the future. The ICC could change existing rules to cover U19 and A appearances though I imagine that could be challenged in some countries, most likely England under EU laws.

What I'm wondering is whether the stipulation for a Kolpak to forgo playing for his country isn't legally challengable. Surely this in itself is a restraint of trade. The whole point of the Kolpak ruling is to allow people (in this particular case, sportsmen) from countries with work agreements with the EU to work freely in Europe and, to me, this stipulation seems like a clear violation of that. A player probably won't challenge that as this will create waves with his employer, but maybe the UCB could.
Yes, that's basically what I was arguing. For eg., originally the SA players could have 'demanded' a work permit in England because their ability to practise as cricketers in SA was clearly being hampered. It seems that in the case of many of the post-KP Kolpakers, this is simply not true and would be able to be challenged by the SA board.

I think Henderson is a different case because being in his autumn (cricket) years he had too much to lose financially by forgoing his English connection. But young players as I stated earlier may find themselves in cricketing limbo and may eventually lose financially and cricket wise if they don't play their cards right under this new agreement. Also in a court situation, this new agreement would prove to the legal eagles that there is potential/flexibility under it for players (stakeholders) to earn a lot of money which again would stymie any argument about restraining trade, earning capacity etc.
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2007, 14:09   #38
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
It's looking good isn't it? It seems like a lot of the players are contributing to the wins so far - Bodi, Botha, Philander, Ontong, De Wet. A good list of names for the future.

Should be an interesting match-up. Hardly surprising the kiwis have gone so far as they probably have the most seasoned players of all four teams in the tournament. I can't understand why each year India persist with sending out a club side rather than their best youngsters.
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2007, 18:22   #39
RLS
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): South Africa, Cape Cobras, Stormers
Posts: 1,769
I'm in two minds about posting this particular link, but I kannae resist:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/co...ml?CMP=OTC-RSS

Speaking of Aussies (and trying to stop their thread superseding our's......), prior to the final the SA 'emerging players' have inflicted another loss on the Aussie academy:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/austr...ry/303853.html

Looks like another good show by Botha, Abdullah and the batsmen. I imagine Botha is certainly in the minds of the ODI selectors now.
RLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2007, 03:30   #40
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLS View Post
I'm in two minds about posting this particular link, but I kannae resist:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/co...ml?CMP=OTC-RSS

Speaking of Aussies (and trying to stop their thread superseding our's......), prior to the final the SA 'emerging players' have inflicted another loss on the Aussie academy:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/austr...ry/303853.html

Looks like another good show by Botha, Abdullah and the batsmen. I imagine Botha is certainly in the minds of the ODI selectors now.
So RLS, what was you prize-winning caption?
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:26.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org