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 > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 14th September 2008, 10:32   #181
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
Yep, even if he never plays another match that'a a figure roughly somewhere between 150-250k straight in the bank.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2008, 17:52   #182
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,669
England don't seem to have the depth of riches of batting resources to be able to jettison Vaughan, Strauss and Collingwood though. They need them, even if it's as an insurance policy, should Bopara, Shah and Bell fail to fully reach their potential in the next 12 months.

Given the above, which is fairly evident to most observers, the cost for needing to keep them available is the only other question. Since they've been centrally contracted, and the core of team as three captains, it would be totally unrealistic to offer them other than a renewal of their contracts for the next 12 months.

I've no wish to see cricket go down the same track as football, with the over-compensation of prima donna players, but Vaughan, Strauss and Colly are fine examples to the next generation of England cricketers and deserve the respect of their employers the ECB.

A central contract is like a retainer. I would be loath to take a chance right now that England can move forward effectively over the next 12 months without retaining the services of Vaughan, Strauss and Collingwood. There needs to be a transitional period when they are eased out of the team, otherwise there is a huge risk that their replacements will not make it.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2008, 20:26   #183
Aidan11
Harmisonesque
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somewhere cold and wet
Posts: 39,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
I've just heard Vaughan saying that he was very lucky to get one because he doesn't make enough runs to justify it. Jobs for the boys anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebrina the Teenage Witch View Post
It's so easy to be refreshingly honest when you've got the comfort of a twelve month contract isn't it.
I notice he wasn't too embarrassed to refuse it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northantsfanone View Post
Speaking to Geoff Cook today they may released Mark Wood from Durham. He rates him but the kid has had an operation and maybe one too many bowlers on the books type deal.
Aidan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2008, 21:43   #184
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
Again I can't agree with you Stevie. Yes, you are right that dumping three senior players all at once would be too much of a sudden change for the side to absorb easily. But there was the opportunity to move on from Strauss during the winter and for Collingwood or Vaughan to be replaced this summer. Instead we've still got two batsmen in the side that really haven't done anything at all (other than a couple of isolated last chance hundreds) since the disastrous 2006 tour of Australia and an ex-captain who resigned first from the ODI side and now the Test side because he was not good enough. Vaughan at his most prolific was certainly the classiest of the three and might come in to contention if other, newer players failed. But it's England's perennial problem that they hang on to past it players for too long, denying younger players the chance to develop. The cupboard isn't overflowing with goodies but neither is it entirely bare. But if the next generation never play then England will soon be forced to pick much younger and even less proven replacements.

Last edited by Baron von Death : 14th September 2008 at 22:22.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2008, 22:00   #185
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan11 View Post
I notice he wasn't too embarrassed to refuse it.
What would you expect him to say? By saying how he was "lucky" to get a contract, given his poor form, he was merely trying to defuse some of the criticism being lobbed his way.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2008, 22:10   #186
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
But there was the opportunity to move on from Strauss during the winter and for Collingwood or Vaughan to be replaced this summer.
Given that we didn't pull the plug on Strauss last winter, and that we kept Vaughan and Colly around until the SA series was lost, presumably because it was felt their experience gave us the best chance of sneaking a series victory, your argument is more of a hand-wringing of missed opportunities to make changes. It is a rather retrospective argument.

When you look at where England are placed with the test side at the end of the season, and look ahead to the next twelve months, it is fairly evident that the three ex-captains need to be kept around a while longer.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2008, 22:25   #187
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
I'd keep one of them, probably Collingwood, as he at least has shown guts in digging himself out of the hole and has a wider contribution to the side with good fielding and occasional bowling. But keeping the three of them around longer would only continue to prevent England moving forward to a post-Vaughan era.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2008, 22:26   #188
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
Wow, that's telling. Thanks for doing all the work which I'm afraid, is beyond my commitment to the board. From I quick glance I's say that considerably less then half those players actually justified their contracts and the number that were given them at the point that long term injury or poor form was carrying them out of the game (usually for good) is alarming. I think I'm becoming convinced that the system is a smarties for the children one. If I was an employer I'd be doing some sums and assessing whether or not I was getting value for my money. Do you think the ECB ever look at figures like these before they sweep matters under the carpet?
I also say well done to FBU for some more impressive stats. They are still giving out contracts to players whose best days are in the past but at least their experience in the early days of handing them out to players before doing anything to justify them, e.g. Schofield, has made them more wary of giving them to the fringe players.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2008, 22:50   #189
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
I'm only slightly surprised they didn't give one to Ashley Giles, just for old times' sake.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2008, 23:01   #190
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
In interview today Michael Vaughan once again claimed that he was only an innings away from a good score, was batting well in the nets and was enjoying batting for Yorkshire. He then quoted the old adage, "form is temporary but cl.." I think he realised then that it perhaps wasn't the done thing to describe oneself as having class, but he kind of got round it, talking generally about class being permanent. He more or less got away with it. Could have done without the studio newspaper man with Garry Richardson who followed that with gushing praise of Vaughan's batting, he's class, England need him, England can't do without him, he'll be back.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2008, 23:13   #191
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
That's why Radio 5 is cack. Incisive journalism goes out of the window as soon as they're dealing with anything other than football.

Vaughan is nearly 34 and I can't see any reason why he's ever going to regain his best form. It would go against the sporting grain.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2008, 23:37   #192
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 793 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
I also say well done to FBU for some more impressive stats. They are still giving out contracts to players whose best days are in the past but at least their experience in the early days of handing them out to players before doing anything to justify them, e.g. Schofield, has made them more wary of giving them to the fringe players.
Thanks. I think now it is a case of playing for a year first and the ECB deciding if they see that player in the squad for the next year before giving a first contract. So far with keepers they don't seem to make the first year without questions.

What we have had though is players being injured and kept on contract with the hope they would be fit to play the next contract year. The medical staff have not provided accurate information or maybe the ECB feel they have done enough in the past to keep their contract.

Considering how much these players bring to the ECB in monetary terms (93 million in 2007) I don't think a contract worth 200,000 - 300,000 is a big ask, say about 4 million in total for the 12 players. 31.5 million goes to the counties. Do we question which players should get contracts at county level?

I suppose it is making sure the right international players have the contracts but that will only be seen after the year has passed. People expect players who have not done much for their contract the previous year not to get another and someone else to be tried.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2008, 10:14   #193
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
That's why Radio 5 is cack. Incisive journalism goes out of the window as soon as they're dealing with anything other than football.
In fairness to Radio 5's cricket coverage, which is very poor, there isn't that much incisive journalism in its football coverage either.

Quote:
Vaughan is nearly 34 and I can't see any reason why he's ever going to regain his best form. It would go against the sporting grain.
I would agree. As you'll recall, I defended him when you were suggesting that he ought to be jettisoned during the winter, pointing out that his form since return, especially against India, suggested he was far from finished as a batsman. I also didn't want him replaced as captain at that point. Sadly, since then he's managed only one substantial score, that against NZ. He doesn't bowl any more; he's an indifferent fielder and he's no longer captain. He would be the one of the three players under discussion (Strauss and Collingwood being the others) whom I would not have contracted. Collingwood's contract is pretty much a no brainer, I think. He clearly still has a role in the ODI side and having scored plenty of runs since recall, it would be absurd for the selectors to drop him now. I would have dropped him earlier and wouldn't have recalled him, myself but that's irrelevent now. If a player does what he's picked for, he stays in the side unless there's a clearly superior replacement. Strauss is a more marginal call. Again, I wouldn't have recalled him and his overall returns in the last few years are poor. Still, I think he probably does need to be contracted for the reasons stevieh gives.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2008, 11:37   #194
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
There you see Slogger. In the end, even you have come round to realising that I am right. We are in almost complete agreement though I am marginally less favourable to Strauss. These are all players that I've liked and supported in the past but I do believe that in sport, you don't wait for the horse to die before you stop trying to make it jump a fence that it is no longer capable of jumping.

As for Radio 5, I was only marginally more charitable to their football coverage because at least they do it in depth or ad nauseam, depending on your point of view. Their grasp of anything else is usally very superficial, as your comment about their nonsensical cheerleading for Vaughan indicates.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2008, 11:28   #195
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
There you see Slogger. In the end, even you have come round to realising that I am right. We are in almost complete agreement though I am marginally less favourable to Strauss. These are all players that I've liked and supported in the past but I do believe that in sport, you don't wait for the horse to die before you stop trying to make it jump a fence that it is no longer capable of jumping.
Easy to say that now though, even if it was also what you were saying in the winter. Vaughan wasn't obviously past it at the point you were arguing for his removal and isn't that obviously past it now either, it's just that the merits of recalling him are very unconvincing with a combination of his form and age. Clearly events have supported your case but it's just that calling decline is tricky. The number of times Alec Stewart was written off as past it when he still had years left in him was very high. He really was past it by his final series though.

Quote:
As for Radio 5, I was only marginally more charitable to their football coverage because at least they do it in depth or ad nauseam, depending on your point of view. Their grasp of anything else is usally very superficial, as your comment about their nonsensical cheerleading for Vaughan indicates.
No, that's fair enough really. The football coverage is better.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde

Last edited by Fatslogger : 12th May 2009 at 21:43.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2008, 11:49   #196
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
Decline is tricky. But again I refer to the Australian experience where they tend to replace people during the early to mid-point of the decline rather than hanging on for the death throes. It does help if you have a production line of talent. A high class player may still be able to play good innings after they have peaked; they'll just be less frequent and less consistent in doing so. Stewart as you mention him, still had his moments, but he was creaking a while before he retired. I do belive that his overlong tenure stunted the development of a generation of wicketkeepers, though it was not his fault that the selectors kept picking him. The best decsion they made was when Hussain announced that they needed to move on and that Foster would replace him, permanently. Except that Foster then broke his arm, the numpty.

In my view, you need to look at the younger prospects early in the decline, when the established player is past thirty and has had two or three below par series. If it's a truly great player then they might get a bit longer if it is regarded as a temporary loss of form rather than the beginning of the end. Steve waugh certainly managed to fully revive his career late in the day. But he was definitely a great. I suppose it would be called succession planning and management. But in England we tend to wait until the last knockings and then scramble around for the next cab off the rank.

Last edited by Baron von Death : 21st September 2008 at 11:18.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2008, 12:37   #197
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
Decline is tricky. But again I refer to the Australian experience where they tend to replace people during the early to mid-point of the decline rather than hanging on to the death throes. It does help if you have a production line of talent. A high class player may still be able to play good innings after they have peaked; they'll just be less frequent and less consistent in doing so. Stewart as you mention him, still had his moments, but he was creaking a while before he retired. I do belive that his overlong tenure stunted the development of a generation of wicketkeepers, though it was not his fault that the selectors kept picking him. The best decsion they made was when Hussain announced that they needed to move on and that Foster would replace him, permanently. Except that Foster then broke his arm, the numpty.

In my view, you need to look at the younger prospects early in the decline, when the established player is past thirty and has had two or three below par series. If it's a truly great player then they might get a bit longer if it is regarded as a temporary loss of form rather than the beginning of the end. Steve waugh certainly managed to fully revive his career late in the day. But he was definitely a great. I suppose it would be called succession planning and management. But in England we tend to wait until the last knockings and then scramble around for the next cab off the rank.
The Australian equivalent to Vaughan, would be Steve Waugh or Mark Taylor. Both of whom were allowed to pick their retirement dates and struggled on for some time. Steve Waugh might have got his century in Sydney in 2003, but earlier in that series Nasser Hussain was offering the likes of Damien Martyn and Adam Gilchrist singles so they could bowl at Steve Waugh.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2008, 11:30   #198
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
Both did struggle later on in their careers, but only after tears of astonishing achievement. Taylor was reportedly about to be dropped but then (predictably) managed to score bigs runs in a tour of England and carried on a bit longer. His sudden retirement suggests that he was either very aware that he would not be retained or had, as is common in Australian cricket now, been quietly tapped on the shoulder and allowed to 'retire' rather than be pushed. Waugh did also struggle after his "Captain fantastic" days but had earned himself every chance to dig himself out of it when he did start to decline. Again, he returned to prime form against England at the point where it was being reported that he would to told to go at the end of the series and then continued to play with distinction. And after a little bit longer, he too 'retired' with dignity intact.

Both these players were sportsmen and captains with superb records and, in the context of a strong side, could be carried for a while, just as David Boon and Alan Border were before them, pending a return to form. It's easier when the rest of the side is contributing. Unfortunately England don't have the luxury of carrying several players who don't contribute on a regular basis. And Vaughan and Strauss are no Waugh and Taylor.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2009, 00:33   #199
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 793 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,193
I was reading somewhere that Flower is not a fan of central contracts and was wondering if we would have fewer than 12 this year but I saw this today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009...ndrew-flintoff

Andrew Chandler, the cricket agent who represents Andrew Flintoff, Michael Vaughan and Steve Harmison, believes England players may be *"better off without central contracts". His views are certain to be discussed by the *England and Wales Cricket Board who, Observer Sport has learned, have already held informal talks regarding the future of the central contract system.

If I was a player I would want to keep the central contracts as my main aim would be to play for England in the longer form of the game. Also going off to play in the IPL might bring lots of money but there is no guarantee the player would not be sitting on the bench. There is also no guarantee the IPL will survive over the coming years. I can see some players picking and choosing their Tests. Pietersen might only like to play against South Africa, Australia and India. Most of them might find their place in the England team taken by someone else though Flintoff and Pietersen wouldn't need to worry about that.

Would Flintoff and Pietersen then be asking for more money to play for England? I read that one country, I think Pakistan, has given various kind of contracts to 75 players from the top class players down to players in the academy.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2009, 00:57   #200
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Flintoff and Pietersen wouldn't need to worry about that.
Well it's time they did need to worry. I don't see Flintoff being around for test cricket much longer with his fitness record. The Ashes could be his swansong. The current Flintoff can be replaced while we would still miss the old one. It is also to be hoped that a few batsmen will be challenging Pietersen and showing that they can be as good.

As for the IPL, it is a distinct possibility that the novelty will have worn off in a couple of years, especially if they keep having to relocate. I don't know how successful it's considered to have been this year but there has been bad weather, a lot of predictable defeats for the side batting second under lights(thank you Midnight for reminding us of that every day. ) and generally low scoring matches. And several of the so-called stars have underperformed.
Michelle Fivefer 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 04:56.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org