The Central Contracts Conundrum

[MPT]

Originally Posted by savva0122

Did someone mention, jobs for the boys?

Jobs for the boys? I think so, but feel free to mention jobs for the boys at any given moment as you see fit.

Jobs for the boys.

[High Druid Nathan Barley]

Originally Posted by Shah's bitch

How is Alistair Cook in the 20/20 team?!

He's not in the team, he's in the squad, so it gives him a bit of the cash, should they win it, and preserves test team dressing room harmony. Strauss and Vaughan haven't got too long left, so long term harmony prospects unaffected.

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Originally Posted by Rey

Which other batsmen would England have given central contracts to, if not Vaughan and Strauss?

IMO it's not the choices themselves, but the system of central contracts which is at fault - you're effectively giving a contract to whoever's in the team at an arbitrary point in the year, for the entire year to come. I'm not sure I completely understand the 'incremental' contracts yet, but it sounds like a move in the right direction (if a bit of a fudge at the same time)

For a start, you could give one to your wicketkeeper.

If not Shah is an integral member of the ODI set up and on the cusp of the test set up. Bopara is hammering on the door in both formats as well.

All 3 would be more deserving of a full contract than either Strauss or Vaughan, who woeful test form aside, are only involved in one format of the game and only just, at that.

[Shah's bitch]

Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley

He's not in the team, he's in the squad, so it gives him a bit of the cash, should they win it, and preserves test team dressing room harmony. Strauss and Vaughan haven't got too long left, so long term harmony prospects unaffected.

Fine twenty20 squad, but still, how does Alistair qualify as one of Englands best 20/20 opening batsman! Test team harmony should not come into the selection of the 20/20 squad, it is a disgrace.

[MPT]

Originally Posted by Shah's bitch

Test team harmony should not come into the selection of the 20/20 squad, it is a disgrace.

Agreed.

[Aidan11]

Jobs for the boys you know.

[MPT]

Jobs for who did you say?

[High Druid Nathan Barley]

Originally Posted by Shah's bitch

Fine twenty20 squad, but still, how does Alistair qualify as one of Englands best 20/20 opening batsman! Test team harmony should not come into the selection of the 20/20 squad, it is a disgrace.

It's not a 20/20 squad for a major international tournament, or an international series. It's a 20/20 competition designed to make the England players some money and to stop them joining the IPL. As such, and given the nonsensical amounts of money involved, test squad harmony is definitely a factor and should definitely be considered when selecting the side for this competition. If our test performances were to be compromised by a lack of forethought by the selectors when picking a squad for a money-making non-official knockaround, that would be the disgrace.

Cook will not play, but is more deserving of an England players' pay day than Key or Denly, or any other superior 20/20 player.

[Shah's bitch]

Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley

It's not a 20/20 squad for a major international tournament, or an international series. It's a 20/20 competition designed to make the England players some money and to stop them joining the IPL. As such, and given the nonsensical amounts of money involved, test squad harmony is definitely a factor and should definitely be considered when selecting the side for this competition. If our test performances were to be compromised by a lack of forethought by the selectors when picking a squad for a money-making non-official knockaround, that would be the disgrace.

Cook will not play, but is more deserving of an England players' pay day than Key or Denly, or any other superior 20/20 player.

Well why wasn't Vaughan selected? or Strauss? If the whole purpose of the Stamford games was to give the players some money, ignoring their actual cricketing ablilities in the 20/20 format, surely they should have been selected.

[stevieh]

Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley

It's not a 20/20 squad for a major international tournament, or an international series. It's a 20/20 competition designed to make the England players some money and to stop them joining the IPL. As such, and given the nonsensical amounts of money involved, test squad harmony is definitely a factor and should definitely be considered when selecting the side for this competition. If our test performances were to be compromised by a lack of forethought by the selectors when picking a squad for a money-making non-official knockaround, that would be the disgrace.

Cook will not play, but is more deserving of an England players' pay day than Key or Denly, or any other superior 20/20 player.

They seem to have addressed the matter by selecting squad both for the 20/20 bonanza and the India ODI series. Fair enough, I'd say. Cook would qualify as a valuable member of the latter group, but enjoys the benefits from the Stanford windfall. It wouldn't make good sense to parachute in totally new squad members who'd be likely to be acting as reserves but would benefit financially.

[collingwood5]

Originally Posted by savva0122

I think Colly's probably quite lucky as well, given his wretched year.

I bet he wouldn't have got it if he was a bowler

Why? He is the 2nd player picked in the ODI team every game and his test place is pretty safe for atleast half the year, given there are a couple who may not feature in either form for the next 12 months, he is fully deserving of his contract

Originally Posted by Chin Music

Well IF and I emphasise the if, he has genuinely shown that his wicket keeping has improved, and that means in test matches then I'm sure they may reconsider but like all other incumbents it will take a long while before I'm convinced, but disasters aside he should be given a few tests.

Hopefully he succeeds because if he stuffs up in the West Indies (India is too short to judge) then we will need a new keeper against the no1 nation in the world, that will make it hard

But I'm amazed at how few contracts are given out, obviously these new contracts mean he now gets a contract of some sort, but to not have a keeper at all is suprising

[High Druid Nathan Barley]

Originally Posted by Shah's bitch

Well why wasn't Vaughan selected? or Strauss? If the whole purpose of the Stamford games was to give the players some money, ignoring their actual cricketing ablilities in the 20/20 format, surely they should have been selected.

I've already addressed that up above. Also Steve is quite right, it is also a joint stanford and india ODI squad, and as such shows consistency of selection.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by collingwood5

Why? He is the 2nd player picked in the ODI team every game and his test place is pretty safe for atleast half the year, given there are a couple who may not feature in either form for the next 12 months, he is fully deserving of his contract



Hopefully he succeeds because if he stuffs up in the West Indies (India is too short to judge) then we will need a new keeper against the no1 nation in the world, that will make it hard

But I'm amazed at how few contracts are given out, obviously these new contracts mean he now gets a contract of some sort, but to not have a keeper at all is suprising

We didnt have one last year either.

[sanskritsimon]

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?

[daz]

Originally Posted by MPT

Agreed.

Ditto.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by Zebrastophilis

Can you? Really. He has been in worse form than Strauss over the last twelve months. We need a clean break with him, a clean break with the past and a clean break from that BLOODY 2005 ASHES!

When we look to innovate, when we look to keep things fresh and dynamic we look good. Why oh why do we want to repeat the mistakes of the past few years?

Perhaps the best way to achieve this is a long session in with the Ashes 2005 DVD. Hooray.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

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?

Vaughan will not get as much as he did as captain, in fairness. Is Blair still on the PM salary (which he didn't take in full, in any case) or merely on an MP's?

[sanskritsimon]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

Is Blair still on the PM salary (which he didn't take in full, in any case) or merely on an MP's?

I was thinking of the new deal involving a middle-eastern photo-shoot...

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

I was thinking of the new deal involving a middle-eastern photo-shoot...

Isn't that somewhat of a different job?

[sanskritsimon]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

Isn't that somewhat of a different job?

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!