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 9th September 2008, 21:27   #81
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Different from being PM? I'd say so, if you call it a 'job'... probably involves doing little of any consequence but still pays v. well I'm sure. How different it is from Vaughan's job remains to be seen!
If Blair wanted a well paid sinecure he'd have no trouble making vast, vast wedges of cash on the lecture tour circuit. Okay, he wouldn't quite be in Bill Clinton's league but then who is? I've no great idea whether he's achieved anything at all in the Middle East but again, who does?

Yes, Vaughan, I can't quite see why he's been awarded a central contract but then if the money is going to someone, I don't mind it being him.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2008, 22:02   #82
Minor Maggie
Buttleresque
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Lancashire, England
Posts: 26,598
Part of the problem is that England have already set precedents about who does and who doesn't get contracts. They kept Giles, Trescothick and Jones on central contracts when they barely played again due to illness and injury. It would be harsh to remove Vaughan's after all that he has done.

It is sad about Hoggard who should have been in the team at Headingley. He still go down as a very good bowler for England and I hope he enjoys the remainder of his career with Yorkshire.
Minor Maggie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2008, 22:57   #83
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
How many jobs are there, other than Prime Minister and England Cricket Captain, where you can walk out on your job by unilateral decision and still be on full pay over a year later?
There are quite a few instances of people like teachers and civil servants and police officers etc being suspended on full pay for months or years while some alleged misconduct is investigated.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2008, 23:10   #84
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,377
It was no surprise that Vaughan got a central contract and I suppose it can be seen, as someone said, as a kind of golden handshake and a thank you for all he has done for England in the past. I am more disappointed by the idea that he will be automatically included in the test squad for India without making any runs. Geoff Miller hinted as much. Last year they gave Strauss a contract but left him out of the Sri Lanka tour only to bring him back on basically no cricketing grounds at all when England performed badly. It looks as if they are going to go one step further this time and give Vaughan a central contract plus a place in the test squad.

I know that Pietersen is friendly with Vaughan and values his experience etc but I'm not sure what use the experience is given his poor record as player and captain since his return from injury. Pietersen is so much his own man I'm surprised he needs it, especially with the other ex-captains still around, viz Strauss, Flintoff and Collingwood. Also I can't see what is to be gained from Vaughan's input in the dressing room rather than on the field, something else mentioned by Miller (I think it was him). Vaughan caused enough trouble in Australia last year trying to muscle in on Flintoff's party.

England do have a history of former captains successfully returning to the ranks, contributing as players and not causing any problems for the new captains. Stewart, Atherton and Hussain all managed it very well, but they were able to contribute with the bat. If Vaughan does get his batting form back then his return to the side would be welcomed, but I'm not convinced it's going to happen.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2008, 23:22   #85
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 754 Wagner 118 TCurran 247 SCurran 99 Cummins 85
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 19,755
'Non-contracted players will be able to earn an England increment contract via the introduction of a new points system which will begin this winter. Five points will be awarded for a Test appearance and two for a T20 or ODI appearance with an England increment contract being awarded automatically once a player reaches 20 points during the 12-month contract period'.

Well if we look at the last 12 months Mustard would be in the 7 players getting an increment and Patel would not. I suppose 3 wicket keepers would be a bit much.

Ambrose 62 points
Shah 48
Bopara 45
Wright 34
Swann 30
Prior 27
Mustard 22
Hoggard 15
Mascarenhas 14
Patel 12
Pattinson 5
Tremlett 2
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2008, 23:23   #86
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
It was no surprise that Vaughan got a central contract and I suppose it can be seen, as someone said, as a kind of golden handshake and a thank you for all he has done for England in the past. I am more disappointed by the idea that he will be automatically included in the test squad for India without making any runs. Geoff Miller hinted as much. Last year they gave Strauss a contract but left him out of the Sri Lanka tour only to bring him back on basically no cricketing grounds at all when England performed badly. It looks as if they are going to go one step further this time and give Vaughan a central contract plus a place in the test squad.

I know that Pietersen is friendly with Vaughan and values his experience etc but I'm not sure what use the experience is given his poor record as player and captain since his return from injury. Pietersen is so much his own man I'm surprised he needs it, especially with the other ex-captains still around, viz Strauss, Flintoff and Collingwood. Also I can't see what is to be gained from Vaughan's input in the dressing room rather than on the field, something else mentioned by Miller (I think it was him). Vaughan caused enough trouble in Australia last year trying to muscle in on Flintoff's party.

England do have a history of former captains successfully returning to the ranks, contributing as players and not causing any problems for the new captains. Stewart, Atherton and Hussain all managed it very well, but they were able to contribute with the bat. If Vaughan does get his batting form back then his return to the side would be welcomed, but I'm not convinced it's going to happen.
At most Atherton was a marginal selection after he resigned the captaincy. Sure, there was the odd crucial innings but overall he wasn't that great. Hussain only kept going for a year after he resigned and finished well. Stewart, of course, was needed as batsman keeper but his batting faded towards the end too. It's not auspicious for Vaughan.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2008, 23:50   #87
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 754 Wagner 118 TCurran 247 SCurran 99 Cummins 85
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 19,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
It was no surprise that Vaughan got a central contract and I suppose it can be seen, as someone said, as a kind of golden handshake and a thank you for all he has done for England in the past. I am more disappointed by the idea that he will be automatically included in the test squad for India without making any runs. Geoff Miller hinted as much.
I thought they delayed announcing the Test squad to give Vaughan more time. Surely they wouldn't have bothered if they were going to include him. I think if he hasn't got any runs by the end of the season he will probably go on the Lions tour.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 00:06   #88
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastBowlersUnion View Post
I thought they delayed announcing the Test squad to give Vaughan more time. Surely they wouldn't have bothered if they were going to include him. I think if he hasn't got any runs by the end of the season he will probably go on the Lions tour.
Good point about the delayed announcement, unless they want to look at a few more wicket keepers.

I heard a bit of an interview of Geoff Miller by Arlo White but unfortunately missed the end - White was trying to put Miller on the spot about whether Vaughan would get back in the side without recovering his form.

I'm very puzzled by Pietersen's support of Vaughan, though, friends or not. He has made it clear that players in his team have to perform - what will he do if Vaughan doesn't? Does he just remember that Vaughan has IT and other batsmen don't?

It has also been suggested that Vaughan's award of a central contract is to keep the other batsmen on their toes. They know they can't relax because one of them will have to miss out when/if Vaughan returns.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 00:26   #89
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 754 Wagner 118 TCurran 247 SCurran 99 Cummins 85
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 19,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
Good point about the delayed announcement, unless they want to look at a few more wicket keepers.

I heard a bit of an interview of Geoff Miller by Arlo White but unfortunately missed the end - White was trying to put Miller on the spot about whether Vaughan would get back in the side without recovering his form.

I'm very puzzled by Pietersen's support of Vaughan, though, friends or not. He has made it clear that players in his team have to perform - what will he do if Vaughan doesn't? Does he just remember that Vaughan has IT and other batsmen don't?

It has also been suggested that Vaughan's award of a central contract is to keep the other batsmen on their toes. They know they can't relax because one of them will have to miss out when/if Vaughan returns.
Well if you have IT I think you get extra time to perform. There are also the players that haven't IT but are on the management committee Bell, Cook, Strauss because they are extremely fit. I think Pietersen replaced Giles as Vaughan's best friend in the squad. Until he gets Vaughan and SJones back and Gough in as the new bowling coach he has had to get a few new friends by putting them on a management committee.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 00:37   #90
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastBowlersUnion View Post
Well if you have IT I think you get extra time to perform. There are also the players that haven't IT but are on the management committee Bell, Cook, Strauss because they are extremely fit. I think Pietersen replaced Giles as Vaughan's best friend in the squad. Until he gets Vaughan and SJones back and Gough in as the new bowling coach he has had to get a few new friends by putting them on a management committee.
If being extremely fit qualifies you for the management committee, it is astonishing that Anderson isn't on it...

Couldn't resist, sorry.

I can't really imagine KP and Vaughan being friends. Maybe they sit and compare property portfolios.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 00:59   #91
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 754 Wagner 118 TCurran 247 SCurran 99 Cummins 85
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 19,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
If being extremely fit qualifies you for the management committee, it is astonishing that Anderson isn't on it...

Couldn't resist, sorry.

I can't really imagine KP and Vaughan being friends. Maybe they sit and compare property portfolios.
"One of the reasons we are so successful at the moment is that the senior guys are training harder than the younger guys. Freddie is on an amazing fitness regime; I always am; Harmy is busting a gut at the moment; Colly is just Colly; Cooky is one of the fittest lads in the team and Belly is pulling his weight brilliantly".

Anderson has quite a few friends on the management committee so he might not have to rely on his fitness to get ahead.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 09:08   #92
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minor Maggie View Post
Part of the problem is that England have already set precedents about who does and who doesn't get contracts. They kept Giles, Trescothick and Jones on central contracts when they barely played again due to illness and injury. It would be harsh to remove Vaughan's after all that he has done.
It is sad about Hoggard who should have been in the team at Headingley. He still go down as a very good bowler for England and I hope he enjoys the remainder of his career with Yorkshire.
Its a central contract for the next year not a pension for past deeds. The fact that theyve messed it up in the past isnt a reason for carrying on doing the same. And if it was Vaughan has already had his paid year off in 2006.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 11:04   #93
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,377
Giving Vaughan a central contract hasn't gone down too well with the media, even though they saw it coming. I particularly like Stephen Brenkley in the Independent.

Quote:
As widely predicted, if not wholly deserved, Michael Vaughan was handed a lucrative central contract yesterday. It was perhaps only surprising that the England selectors, who are beginning to display the kind of faith usually witnessed only in dodgy religious cults, decided against also awarding him a place in the squad for the Stanford Series Twenty20 match worth a total of $20m....

....Vaughan, the erstwhile captain and out of sorts batsman, has been contracted, as has Andrew Strauss, who had a lean series against South Africa after a fat one against the lesser New Zealand lights.

"We know what he is capable of doing," said Miller of Vaughan. "I have no hesitation in knowing that he will get through his sticky patch." But there is no doubt that Vaughan is trading on former glories. In the 12 Tests he has played covering the last central contract he scored 578 runs at 27.52, in five Championship matches this summer he has scored 196 runs. There comes a time when debts might be considered to have been paid.

Similarly, Paul Collingwood may have played a career-saving innings against South Africa in the third Test which England still lost but in the period of the last central contract his average in 21 innings was 37.39. The selectors have been indulgent in allowing players to drink long and hard at the last chance saloon, which says a lot about modern licensing laws.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 11:13   #94
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
My issue,as one who didnt like MPV lurking around, IMO undermining Fred - whether intentional or not - on the 2006/07 ashes tour, is another period of him lurking. KP may be comfortable with it now after his euphoric start, but wait till he starts having more difficult times.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 11:25   #95
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post
My issue,as one who didnt like MPV lurking around, IMO undermining Fred - whether intentional or not - on the 2006/07 ashes tour, is another period of him lurking. KP may be comfortable with it now after his euphoric start, but wait till he starts having more difficult times.
I am not concerned about that, as having given up the captaincy I doubt the side will be thought of as his anymore. There will be little doubt that Pietersen is in charge. What upsets me slightly is, as Brenkley says, the inclusion of so many out of form batsmen. Much though I like Vaughan, I don't really see that there is enough chance of his reclaiming past glories to stay in the side, especially now he is no longer captain, is dubious in the field and neither young nor entirely without injury concerns. I'm not sanguine about Strauss or Collingwood either. Colly certainly offers enough to both test and ODI sides to keep his contract but his test form isn't great and he will need to do well to justify a continued place in the side. Strauss may be the best option as opener, although I would have recalled Key in his stead. I wouldn't have contracted either of them though. Perhaps there is a difficulty in removing the contract of a senior player you may or may not want to play, however.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 11:34   #96
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Wait till we are go behind in the ashes if MPV is in the side. I can guess what the press will be saying.

Agree about the out of form batsmen. The "comeback" of Strauss - if, unlike me, you think it was a good thing - shows what a period out of the side can do. Maybe a period without the security of a contract would jolly along the batsman who dont really deserve that security even more? Importantly, it might also motivate those outside the side who must wonder what they can do to get in. Whatever you think of Key/Shah /Bopara, for example, a contract going to a man who hasnt been able to buy a run in any form of cricket for some time, must be hard for them to take.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 11:41   #97
sharky
Legendary
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 9,938
Not too keen on Vaughan getting a central contract but as they seemingly had to give away 12, then nobody really has made a massive challenge to take his place. I quite like the idea of the increment contracts. I would also set up some excrement contracts to give to the likes of Kabir Ali, Rikki Clarke and Geraint Jones
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 11:43   #98
Sporadic
Bat In Hand
 
Sporadic's Avatar
Attack the Pope not the pastor. TMI.
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 20
you must be thinking of the kabir ali who hasn't been the best bowler in the CC this season (give or take a mark davies or two)
Sporadic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 11:43   #99
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim View Post
Wait till we are go behind in the ashes if MPV is in the side. I can guess what the press will be saying.
Why on earth is Vaughan in the side scoring no runs?

Quote:
Agree about the out of form batsmen. The "comeback" of Strauss - if, unlike me, you think it was a good thing - shows what a period out of the side can do. Maybe a period without the security of a contract would jolly along the batsman who dont really deserve that security even more? Importantly, it might also motivate those outside the side who must wonder what they can do to get in. Whatever you think of Key/Shah /Bopara, for example, a contract going to a man who hasnt been able to buy a run in any form of cricket for some time, must be hard for them to take.
I wouldn't have recalled Strauss but it hasn't turned out all that badly. The problem is that up against a decent side again, it didn't look like it had turned out all that well either.

I'm really not sure about the effects of removing a contract from a senior player. It's difficult to do so without jettisoning him entirely, would be my initial view. Imagine how a player would feel having been contracted to lose that contract. It would be a huge slap in the face. I don't believe in keeping the players keen by treating them mean. On that basis, if really pushed, I'd probably have stuck with Strauss in the contracted list but not with Vaughan. I don't like the idea of making a whole series of changes to the batting in a short time, apart from anything else, although, as mentioned, I probably wouldn't be picking Strauss over Key. Once you think about it in those terms, it does point up some real difficulties with central contracts though, even if on the whole they're a good thing. Once I've said I'm giving Strauss a contract, it's tough to pick Key ahead of him unless Key himself has a contract, which would strike me as a very silly decision. Hmm, I seem to be talking myself into the status quo.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2008, 11:44   #100
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
Not too keen on Vaughan getting a central contract but as they seemingly had to give away 12, then nobody really has made a massive challenge to take his place. I quite like the idea of the increment contracts. I would also set up some excrement contracts to give to the likes of Kabir Ali, Rikki Clarke and Geraint Jones
Why do they have to give away 12?
Kim 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 17:11.



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