I have been asked a few times this week about what I thought about the 20 player contracts handed out by Cricket Australia during the week for the 2013/14 calendar year. In truth, all that happened during the week though was two retirees moved to state contracts, one almost retiree was omitted and those players who had played enough during the year just gone received confirmation of the contracts they already had.

So why all of the fuss about what was really a nothing announcement? A couple of obvious statements need to be a preliminaries to this discussion:

1. All that matters in the world of central contracts is what the CA selectors think;
2. Just because you don’t have a CA contract doesn’t mean you will not play for Australia; and
3. What I think as a fan does not matter a jot to CA when it comes to contracting or any other matter.

The foregoing is clear from the events of 2012/13 and are now in the category of immutable truths.

So why comment then? Because whilst I believe that it is CA’s irrevocable right to choose whomever they want as contracted players, it strikes me that the system of central contracts is irretrievably broken and in need of a serious rethink.

Let’s take the cases of 3 players who received contracts and consider them for the reasons why:

1. Patrick Cummins: this kid has talent and speed to burn yet has still not played more than 10 first class games despite becoming a platinum frequent flyer of the back of the number of tours he has been on. He has not picked up a cricket ball in anger (certainly a red ball) during the 2012/13 season. Why then does he receive a contract? It seems he has been contracted to protect him from the evils of a Cricket NSW rehabilitation program: Pat Howard obviously thinks he can do it better!

2. Xavier Doherty: an undoubtedly talented one day bowler but is not selected for T20 cricket and we all know what happened in India. We also all know that his first class numbers just simply do not stack up to put him in the top three or maybe ever the top five red ball spin bowlers in the country. Why does he receive a contract? Because he is one of the first picked in one form of the game and because of the number of games he has played during the year he MUST receive one.

3. Mitchell Johnson: in his pomp one of the best bowlers in the world BUT his pomp was before the last Ashes series in England. Out of form, seemingly out of favour for red ball cricket, behind M Starc and erratic when he is playing and yet still qualifies for a contract because of the number of games he has played.

The foregoing examples are not meant to be attacks on the players but on the system. How a player who has not played, one who only plays well in one form and one who is a veteran but desperately out of form retain contracts is beyond me and gets me back to considering whether the system itself is fractured. When you have a moment, run your eye back over the list and tell me how many of those 20 players you think will play all three forms of the game in 2013/14? Less than half? Therein lies the problem for mine: we have split international teams with different captains and maybe it it time for a split contracting system.

My proposed system would work this way: there would be a four tiered system of playing contracts in Australia encompassing all forms of the game. The first three tiers will cover the 3 forms of cricket Australia plays in and a player can have a contract in all three tiers depending on whether CA thinks he will play in those tiers over the course of a season. A player might be in one tier or two tiers as well but regardless that player will still be centrally contracted. This may have the flow on effect of more contract players but will also have the effect of a centrally contracted player under the current system who only plays one form of the game no longer standing in the way of a three form player on the fringe who can not get a contract.

The 4th tier of contracts would be a development list or disabled list of players whom CA still wish to have under their purview whilst they recover from their ailments or if CA considers that they are not ready for the top flight yet but wants to keep its eye on them. Currently such players, Cummins has the key example, receive a central contract which means one (or more) of the central contracts are locked up by players not likely to play!

The elephant in the room on central contracting by CA also needs to be addressed: the concept of guaranteed contracts for players who have simply played enough games of cricket during the year. To paraphrase R M Hogg (via twitter) “why are we (CA) rewarding players for averaging under 35 with the bat and over 30 with the ball?” The answer is guaranteed contracts and whilst I dip my hat to the ACA and their negotiating team for getting guaranteed contracts in the cricketers ABA surely having such contracts breeds a culture of players receiving contracts who are out of form or out of favour. M Johnson I am looking directly at you!

For all of the fuss about this week’s players contracts announcements will anything change? NO! Should it? YES! Will it? The ACA holds the key to that the next time it renegotiates with CA but I can not see the ABA changing anytime soon.

So where does that leave us: well in the same place as we were before you read (and I wrote) this blog. 20 players have been contracted by CA for 2013/14 and whether we, as fans of the game, like the list or not that is the list we are stuck with.