Tag Archives: central contracts

Cricket Australia and Player Contracts: some thoughts

April 5, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , Leave a comment

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.

Cricket Australia announces 2012/13 contract list: an emphasis on test cricket apparently

June 22, 2012 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , 1 Comment

Today Cricket Australia announced the list of centrally contracted players for the coming summber (2012/13).  The following are those who received contracts:

Michael Clarke, Patrick Cummins, Xavier Doherty, Brad Haddin, Ryan Harris, Ben Hilfenhaus, David Hussey, Mike Hussey, Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Johnson, James Pattinson, Ricky Ponting, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, Matthew Wade, David Warner, Shane Watson.

The move to reduce the contracted player numbers to 17 players and to, based on the Argus Report, focus on test cricket is something I wholeheartedly support.  I am not sure however that the new contract list does that though.

The glaring inclusion in the list is that of Mitchell Johnson.  Based on form over at least the last 12 months of test cricket he has played and in his return to first class cricket after his toe injury he surely can not be Australia’s top 17 players available for test match selection.  On the assumption that our test team will only ever include 3 fast bowlers, I can not imagine that he is ahead of any of Cummins, Harris, Hilfenhaus, Pattinson, Siddle or Starc on form and, indeed, recent reputation.

I am also surprised that Doherty has received a contract.  Based on recent selections he is behind both Lyon and Beer in the spin bowling pecking order.  Indeed he has a bowler ahead of him based on test squad selections, in the form of Beer, who bowls in precisely the same fashion as he does.  This is a strange inclusion if test cricket is your focus.

I have made much on twitter about Cowan’s exclusion however I confess that I can see the logic in not including him based on his form to date.  Equally, I would have though that if Cricket Australia considers him important enough to the Australian set up to make him captain of the Australian A team touring England this winter, they really should have thought him within the core of Australian players who received a contract.   Could it be that the plan is for Watson to open with Warner in the Ashes?

I will be interested to see if David Hussey’s inclusion in the contract list means he is the next in line for a test match spot.  I would find it surprising if that is the case with calibre of young batsmen waiting in the wings.  Shaun Marsh seems to have done himself out of the running after his troubles in the Border-Gavasker Trophy.  That said, Peter Forrest has done everything asked of him and was in the squad for the Frank Worrell Trophy whilst Liam Davis, Tom Cooper and Bob Quiney set the Sheffield Shield alight last summer.  If our next test batsmen is supposed to come from the contract list then the selectors have missed the mark.

I should say here that I do not dispute that players in other forms of the game ought also be recognised and receive recompense for their services.  In the context however of an alleged focus on test cricket from Cricket Australia in these contracts then players who are specialist short form players seem out of place.

A final comment: the Sheffield Shield champions from last year have only managed to have one player considered in the top 17 players in the country.  If nothing else that much show that the days of the Sheffield Shield and form shown in domestic cricket being the principal basis for selection in Australia’s national squad are fast disappearing.