The most divisive and tasteless selection in cricket history
England's selectors have only delayed the moment of truth.
By announcing a squad of 15 players for the controversial Stanford Twenty20 contest, the selectors have merely put back the day when the final 11, who will play for the chance to win $1m each, are revealed.
Only then will the impact of the most divisive and tasteless selection in cricket history be known.
I only hope the England management have been on an extra training course to prepare themselves.
The unlucky four squad members can console themselves with the thought of possibly picking up $250,000 each in the event of their colleagues beating the Stanford Super Stars, but I hope people are slowly waking up to quite what a vulgar and thoroughly unnecessary exercise this is.
The England and Wales Cricket Board's hope is that it will lure England's players away from participating in the Indian Premier League next spring.
Well, let's see. I will happily take a friendly bet with anyone now that this unofficial Texan shoot-out will not persuade England's players to remain at home rather than chase further riches in India.
There will, of course, be some sort of macabre interest in this first match of its kind but of much greater importance to me is the discovery over the coming months of exactly what the deal is between the ECB and Sir Allen Stanford, particularly the depth of his involvement in the English Premier League.
In an otherwise predictable announcement, I am very glad that former England captain Michael Vaughan has retained his central contract, and to hear selector Geoff Miller's ringing endorsement of a man who could still play an important role.
Vaughan will be setting his sights very much on Andrew Strauss's place in the team. Strauss will be thoroughly scrutinised in the two Tests against India before Christmas.
I travelled to see Vaughan a couple of weeks ago, and gained the impression that the former captain is determined to give his playing career a real shot between now and the start of the Ashes.
This would include playing club cricket overseas this winter if necessary. But if he fails to win his England place back by the time the Ashes come around in the summer of 2009, he would, in all likelihood, bring the curtain down.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~21~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Surely this is just an extension of the ECB selling its soul to Sky.
Millions of viewers are deprived of watching televised cricket coverage, with TMS doing its best to fill a nationwide void.
Sandford's money is tasteless, but we will see far even fawning and subservience from the ECB in future, whenever they smell the opportunity to get cash.
Shame.
Complain about this comment
'tasteless selection' is about right. I would have thought the joy of having a hobby as a full time job would be enough for most people, but apparently sportsmen always want more.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid Aggers that I don't agree with your position re: Michael Vaughan. It's good to hear that he is driven and keen to win his place back. However all of the other centrally-contracted players are in the team in at least one form of the game, whereas Vaughan does not play ODIs and is not currently in the Test side. Central contracts should be seen and used as an incentive to players to get into the national side and perform, they should not be used to provide income for players not currently performing or in the side, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
Money Vs The Spirit of Cricket. An interesting yet ghastly prospect, as is the notion of an American 'owning' the ECB, EPL, and England team whether it's a time-share or not.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure I completely agree with the sentiments expressed here.
Stanford needs to be involved with any future E.P.L., simply because we don't have benefactors/billionaires in this country who will give the counties the same sort of money the Bollywood stars and Indian industrialists did to the I.P.L. franchises. The E.C.B. needs some sort of external backing as it can't fund the foreign stars itself.
I'd prefer to keep the England players away from the I.P.L. and play a few games versus Stanford's sides, to be honest. That way, there could no controversy when someone would be injured in the I.P.L., as the English players would still be playing under the E.C.B. Furthermore, the E.C.B. needs to compete financially with the I.P.L. to keep centrally-contracted players in England; the Stanford Series offers a way around that.
I myself am sorry that it has come to the stage where the E.C.B. has to arrange vulgar contests such as these to keep players who ought to be proud to play for England and should view it as the pinnacle of their careers. However, I am much more comfortable with the players earning a fortune for playing 4-6 friendlies for England than playing cricket in India and renouncing central contracts.
I don't like the idea of a 20/20 Premier League in England, yet it has to happen due to the I.P.L. and Stanford's backing is the only way at present to do it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This all reminds me of the nonsense that was spouted from the "empire" regarding Kerry Packer who ultimately saved the sport of Cricket in Australia and was a major contributor to it's survival around the world.
Good on Allen Stanford for putting his money where his ego is and supporting Cricket, in any form in the Caribbean.
Complain about this comment
i agree with aggers on the vaughn situation he has always been rubbish at county cricket but i wud hav him opening withe cook in tests cook and strauss r 2 similar
regards stanford the ecb are also makin money from this not just players and its not there fault for wantin to make as money as possible just look at the amount of ex players r on there staff
aggers if u were offered a million £ to commontate on a match but none of ur tms mates were offered the gig how long wud it take u to sign up?
Complain about this comment
J.A - I am sorry I disagree, I think this will tempt more English players to the Indian premier league, the likes of Mascarenhas, Tremlett, Foster and Napier why should they stay around and wait for England when they have been over looked .
Complain about this comment
I wonder what other batsmen who have been playing well in county cricket this season feel about MV being given a central contract, as his form since returning to Yorkshire has been awful. If as in your view to get back in the team all he needs is for Strauss to fail it is a sad state of affairs and reeks of favouritism yet again.
Complain about this comment
Tell us No.6, did you actually read the Telegraph article linked in the blog before you started foaming at the mouth with your pointless anti-Aggers rant or did you just dive straight in without grasping what exactly it is Stanford has purchased?
Complain about this comment
Re: no. 6. The ECB could at least have had the temerity to explain some of the values of the game to Mr. Stanford. A big money match is all very well, but this puts way too much emphasis on individual stars and will only do good for TV companies and not cricket. Imagine what $20million could do as seed money for grass-roots cricket and coaching in England. If either Stanford or the ECB really cared about the future of the game, and not just the immediacy of its celebrity status via 20/20 then this format would not have been acquiesced in. I think, therefore, that Aggers is absolutely right in his castigation of it.
Complain about this comment
The simplest solution for the England squad to avoid the divisiveness that will unquestionably occur once the final 11 is selected is surely to get every player in the current 15 man squad to agree to pool all monies earned from the fixture giving each squad member an even 1/15th share. Each player gets a decent payday and no one is left out.
This seems far too simple, there must be a flaw to this logic?
The other option is to ignore this vulgar fixture and allow the England players to play in the IPL…..seems funny now that this appears the more palatable option.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The ECB is following the FA model of getting as much cash in regardless of what it does to the real game.
Like football, we could be heading rapidly for Franchise CC and destroying the structure of the game as we know it. I for one don't want to see that happening. I'm all in favour of progress, but this isn't it and there is also taking the national game up a blind alley from which there might be no return.
What happens when Sky and Stanford walk away from the game and there is no cash left ?
Why isn't anybody standing up to this and saying no?
Complain about this comment
Sadly we old romantics still consider cricket to be a game and in some areas it still is despite the continuous aping by young and impressionable cricketers of the bad behaviour displayed on Television by overpaid loudmouths. It is sad when youngsters of age thirteen keep up a stream of continuous drivel under the guise of supporting their bowlers. International cricket is now a game played by yobs for money who couldn't care less about the example that they are setting.
Complain about this comment
Cant believe many avid cricket fans will have more than a passing interest in this game as with the IPL. Get it over with and back to the real stuff this winter
Complain about this comment
I think there's only you that has labelled this match as "controversial" Aggers
Complain about this comment
i wonder why Mascarenhas is not in the squad!!!
Complain about this comment
The sad thing with ECB's apparent 'money, money, money' approach to running the game in this country is how little it appears to be benefitting grass roots junior cricket. As a youngster, I watched every day of every test match on TV aswell as county one day games on a sunday.....and in between we were playing the game, trying to be David Gower or Bob Willis. My 9 year old loves the game but unless I subscribe to Sky (which I can't afford to) he can't watch any live cricket. At best its a few highlights, if they are not on too late in the evening. He is an example of a keen youngster who in the future may be lost to a more accessible sport. I'm involved in my local village club - other than the odd plastic quick cricket set, we see very little money come our way and struggle incredibly to get places on over subscribed course for 'dads' to become qualified coaches to help with the junior section. My son, as with the rest of the nation, was hyper about cricket after the Ashes - I'm afraid the ECB missed their opportunity for the sake of short term financial game.
Complain about this comment
I assume from the tone of your blog that you haven't been selected for 5live's commentary team for the match in question. It will be Mann and Pougash picking up the dosh. Don't fret, I'm sure they will buy you a cake.
Complain about this comment
It`s just not cricket !!, i agree with Aggers
Complain about this comment
Its a golden handshake for Vaughan, nothing more.
Complain about this comment
I totally agree that the whole prize money thing is pretty rank.
When the ECB got involved they should have laid out harsh terms of fair distribution of the prize money.
Perhaps even going as far as to absorb all prize money into a special ECB pot for everyone involved with a central contract - players and coaches.
Now, like Aggers says, we're in a filthy selection situation. Yuck! The whole thing stinks!
Complain about this comment
Can there ever have been a game of cricket whose outcome was of so little interest to the public yet of so great an interest to the players involved? At the same times as some counties struggle to survive, individual players stand to make unheard of fortunes. The implications for player and club relationships don't bear thinking about.
Complain about this comment
I don't see why you are delighted that Vaughan has retained his central contract. His form was, and still is, poor. He deserved to be dropped from the test arena and England seem to have moved on or at least found new heart under KP. Unless Vaughan turns it around big time, he should remain in exile because any return to the fold will only muddy the waters.
p/s I wish I could find somebody to give me a lucrative deal for failure.
Complain about this comment
Why does Jonathan have to be pilloried at every moment? He is a writer who is paid to publish and broadcast his opinion, and that is what you are getting.
You may not like what he says, but at least it is valid comment on what is happening now in the game, and like many others I am happy to read and then make my own mind up, without shooting the messenger.
Leave the guy alone, he does a good job in my view.
Peter
Complain about this comment
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the players donated their prize money to cricket-based charities so that the ECB and Stanford could see that at least the players were interested in investing in the game, and not just in themselves. Won't happen, of course, but it would be the cricketing thing to do. I for one would applaud any man who made such a gesture, and would bet that that man's fame and status would live much longer (and be worth much more in the long run) than that of the man who simply banked the lot.
Complain about this comment
oh dear. vaughn retains central contract without a shred of form. he hasn't looked better than AVERAGE since he came back from injury over a year ago, to say nothing of his recent county form. i reckon miller's ringing endorsement will sound pretty hollow in 12 months time...
oh dear. harmison back for a few matches gets selected for the stanford game.. so, geraint, freddy, colly, harmy, jimmy all back in the team...the fletcher test clicque! neil fairbrother will be pleased...
Complain about this comment
A couple of points: why is it always Strauss that is under the media spotlight? And why Vaughan? he's yesterday's man. As a poster further back says: it is a golden handshake for past services: the usual sentimentality: bit like Beckham some would say: and he is still more useful. One sharp twist of the dodgy knee!!!!!!! whereas Strauss is fit, currently getting more runs: though it should be more: Vaughan has yet to pass 20 in a county match since standing down. I don't think any of India/Windies or Oz are losing any sleep. With regard to Stanford: USD7mill of the prize money goes to the ECB/WICB: so he has put his money where his mouth is by putting some of the dough back into the game. Pietersen/Flintoff are going to get massive IPL offers anyway: they will accept and who can blame them.
Complain about this comment
vaughan has NEVER been prolific for yorkshire he needs runs i agree but above all else he needs faith to be shown in him. personally id hav put him and strauss on the lower level of contract since their test specialists but England may need his class and experience next year. He averages over 50 in tests when not skipper remember
Complain about this comment
I think both Strauss and Vaughan are a waste of valuable places for players who "really" want to win. How can the selectors be so crass?Strauss has been worked out by the worlds best bowlers but Strauss hasnt changed his game enough to get over his poor run.Vaughan is not even good enough to play at county level anymore just look at his scores.Its a backwards step when we need a secure and committed winning team.It also sends out a pretty demoralising message to players who have done everything right this year only to be brushed aside.Those two places should go to those in form and who can gel with the current team not has beens.
Complain about this comment
Could this possibly be the reason for Harmison's ODI reversal?, it will be interesting to see how long he stays out of retirement.
Complain about this comment
So right Aggers. What kind of tasteless buffoon gives all this money to a bunch of already wealthy sportsmen? And as you say, this will not discourage interest in IPL, it will increase it.
He could have used one tenth of this money as a prize to stimulate interest and given the rest to someone who actually needs it: AIDS research, malaria research, you name it.
Would I turn it down? No, only an idiot would. Is it right? Of course not. If cricket goes down the route of premier league football (greed, petulance, arrogance, failure), it's the beginning of the end.
Complain about this comment
Alistair Cook?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Twenty20?!?!?!?!
Are you having a laugh!
I'd rather have Denly any day!
No seriously Alistair Cook is playing twenty20 for England. Of all the stars seen in the domestic twenty20 they are all shafted for Cook who has been deemed too defensive even for ODIs.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
Complain about this comment
Why must everyone approach this subject in quite such a melancholic and pessimistic tone, I've had quite enough of everyone harking back to some rose-tinted golden age of sportsmanship.
Jonathon Agnew's comments regarding the announcement of the Stanford team could easily have been predicted, almost to the word, before reading this blog.
Professional cricket will continue to provide an enjoyable spectacle regardless of the money flowing into player's pockets and test cricket will retain its primacy, at least in this country.
Complain about this comment
Awarding MV a central contract is perverse. He's only been in the team the last 2 years because of his captaincy, not his form.
Now Pietersen is captain and MV is still out of form, why in God's name has he been given a central contract?!!?!
If Vaughan gets back into the team, and it'll only be the test team, I will change my name to Geoffrey Boycott and join the Monster Raving Loony Party.
Complain about this comment
Its just a game of cricket!! Not even real cricket, just some T20 fun.....
It sounds like people on here are just jealous of cricketers getting paid for once. Look at footballers, now that's embarrassing...!!
I know JA's views about this form of the game are not particularly complimentary, but i enjoyed the IPL this season and will be an avid viewer for years to come. The onlt thing it missed this year was english talent on show, which i'm sure will not be the case next season.
As regards Vaughan, is it any surprise?? This England management team have shown from the beginning they have no balls and i'm sure things like this will continue. Once a player has been dropped, like Hoggard, his contract should not be renewed. Think of Shah and Bopara, they are the future of England's batting line-up now (and i guess Key too). This is another in a long line of kicks in the teeth for these guys.
Complain about this comment
I agree with number 5. The whole thing Stanford thing makes me feel rather uncomfortable, but I would prefer a few games in October than loosing players for weeks on end to the whole garish IPL circus.
By choosing the usual English players it can at least look as if it is a warm up for the Indian series, rather than choosing specialist 20/20 players, which would make them look like money grabbers and alienate squad members.
Complain about this comment
"$1 million. Isn't that about £10?" A certain US Open Finalist.
Aggers raised another astute point referring to players potential involvement in the IPL. anyway, joshing aside, it's a huge sum (ghastly because of it's pecuniary disproportionateness relative to the game). For this reason, the $1 million carrot needs to be offset by a stick approach perhaps tying players to the county EPL and England internationals (complusory touring maybe) plus more.
Incidentally, I wish that the players' pot was $3.5 million and the ECB picked up the rest.
I'm quite young and am confused by the Kerry Packer references. Did he lure players with similar sums of money? i.e. is this anything new?
Complain about this comment
I can't believe the amount of people moaning about this being on SKY. So were the test matches and the ODI's. If you dont like it - then subscribe, its good coverage and money is put back into the game in the form of sponsorship etc.
I dont agree with Aggers either. Lets not lose sight of this. The Stanford competition is a spectacle, nothing more. If the players can win big money then good for them - I doubt he would have turned it down.
20/20 will never replace test cricket. It is cricket for the masses and if it brings cash into our game then that must be a good thing. Its time to move with the times and stop being such fuddy duddys.
What was it Will Carling said about old farts? Any coincidence that not too long after they went, we won the Rugby world cup?
Complain about this comment
Whilst this whole concept may be tasteless, as the team are representing the ECB, so the money should be paid to the ECB, with only a proportion of it going to the players. The BBC has concentrated upon Harmison's inclusion, as if he will be representing the ECB on his own and that, following his contributions to recent victories, is equally tasteless.
Complain about this comment
when you put business people in charge of sport, they do business with other business people. when sports people are in chage they do sport. what do you expect/
Complain about this comment
This Stamford stuff does feel odd. Can't imagine the England football team playing for 1 million dollars each against an all-star 11. (maybe, a team like the allied prisoners in "escape to victory")
Seems, 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.' But, like must of us, I will still be watching... hopefully for free, on a streaming website on the Internet.
Complain about this comment
nothing wrong with sportsmen being well paid but overpaid is wrong for me,i have already lost intrest
in the football premier league because there are to many ordianary players getting to much money for nothing.
Complain about this comment
Aggers or anyone who knows, is there any hope for the ashes being listed as an event that must receive terrestrial coverage again, like the six nations and wimbledon?
Complain about this comment
Spot on with the Stanford match. These players aren't representing their country in this match, merely trying to make themselves even richer. When we see someone like KP hit a century or Harmy getting 5 wkts we can see them celebrate because of not only it means to them, but the team, the fans and the country. If one of our boys takes 5 wkts in this farce, all he be doing is celebrating the fact his bank balance may shot up.
It's tasteless and potentially a negative influence on the camp.
Complain about this comment
I'm absolutely delighted that Michael Vaughan has been awarded a new central contract. Some shortsighted people seem to think these things should only be awarded to in form players. I'm very much a believer of the old saying " form is temporary, class is permanent", and that's ceretainly the case with Vaughan.
The timing of this award could be a massive boost for him ahead of Yorkshire's final two County Championship matches of the season. Obviously there's no guarantee Vaughan will be selected for the winter tours of India or the West Indies just because he's got a central contract, as Strauss found out last year, but this is a clear indication, not only from the selectors but also from Kevin Pietersen, that they still feel Vaughan has a role to play.
It will be easier said than done, but all Vaughan has to do now is justify the faith of the selectors and Pietersen. With no obvious alternatives to Vaughan, or at least none with his experience and track record, I would like to see him in the squad to tour India. If he doesn't return to form with Yorkshire before the end of the season it's good to hear that he's prepared to work on his form overseas before the India tour.
Complain about this comment
How on Earth is Alistair Cook in the squad??
Smacks of looking after the test squad (except poor old Monty) to me. If he is one of Englands best 20/20 / one day player then the selectors are truly a bunch of muppets. Am I right in thinking that during the 'trial' with him opening, there was a considerable media coverage when he actually managed to score his 1st one day six! I just feel sorry for all the consistent one day players that havent even had a sniff - so much for the views of Atherton et al's comments during the abandoned game at Cardiff, that a wildcard would get in the squad!
Absolutely shocking:(
Complain about this comment
could I just say, I'd rather listen to John Arlott than have to put up with the tasteless inane drivel that gets served up by your current cricket correspondent, surely IPL must have the money to lure him away from the BBC please:)
Complain about this comment
The inclusion of Vaughan's name amongst the central contracts is frankly a bit of a worry. The recent performances of the England team have just got better and better in Vaughan's absence. Why compromise their momentum? There are shades of David Beckham about all of this. To pick a player on the grounds of what he can do is far removed from what he actually is doing. Vaughan's record against Australia is indeed impressive but I fear the form and confidence of yesteryear is now firmly in his rear view mirror. I have been a huge fan of Vaughan and would pay to go and watch his cover drive but now is the time to face reality and move on. I would love him to prove me wrong but fear that sentiment has got in the way of reason on this occasion.
Complain about this comment
which players make up the stanford superstars?
Complain about this comment
I don't give a toss about Stanford or Twenty20, but I'm extremely glad to see Vaughan get his contract back.
I would LOVE to see him opening (with Cook) either in the next Test series or the one after that. The man is simply one of the most experienced and best equipped batsmen we've got to take on the Indians and Aussies, and I'm confident that a combination of KP's faith in him (a la Flintoff and Harmison) and the removal of the burden of captaincy will see him return to the form we haven't seen from him since 2003 when he was the #1 rated batsman in the world.
He's got a good couple of years left in him now to leave an indelible mark on English Test cricket. Nothing would make me happier than to see him fired up and in form when the Ashes roll around next year.
Stuff your Twenty20 - I'd rather listen to paint dry.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re reply one and the comdenation of Sky.
Without Sky, cricket would not be in the position it is today. Where were the terestrial channels before Sky. No overseas tours were broadcast, not even highlights. Home test matches were often interupted by horse racing.
It's good and well everyone having a go at Sky, but surely they cannot be blamed for securing a market that no one else appeared interested in.
Complain about this comment
#54...what an ironic name you've given yourself. You manage a personal and vitriolic attack under the veil of anonymity. Are you so brave in real life?
Complain about this comment
“ What happens when Sky and Stanford walk away from the game and there is no cash left ?
Why isn't anybody standing up to this and saying no? ”
$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£
Hi GayErnie - this article might provide some context...
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/217666.html
Hope helpful
Complain about this comment
I agree with everything you say aggers. But frankly this is the way cricket is going. How can cricket keep players motivated for long international careers when they can earn enough in one meaningless match to sustain themselves for life. I don't care who wins this stupid stanford match. But england's players would now rather win this match than the Ashes - (even if they wouldn't say so) - how can that be good for the game! I care about the future of the game - that does not mean I am anti Twenty20 - but I am anti-Stanford and the greedy short-termist business minded ECB who have tossed away much of the tremendous opportunity that came from the Ashes in 2005.
Complain about this comment
i would like to complain about the people complain about the people who complain about Aggers' complaints...if Aggers makes very loftly comments then that sets up the spirit of the debate that follows..surely this is just answering like with like? those of u who make the complaints tend to agree with Aggers so it seems to be just a matter of opinion afterall...i for one enjoy strong cricket banter and feel that's all most of us are doing whether we agree with Aggers or not...but surely when he is so opinionated, in such a typical english old school way, it simply fules quite aggressive responses. for example if u read Marks or Roebuck they have fairly similar views to Aggers but they state it in a more calm and less uppity "raa raa booo" manner so they attract less banter in return. as for the issue at hand...what a great match is in store...many of u traditionalists forget that the stanford games have already inspired much in my beloved west indies where we cannot afford NOT to take up sponsorship deals. when words like "vulgar" are used it leaves a bit of a sour taste in my trini mouth. we all have our different ways, ok.
Complain about this comment
I am pleased that Vaughan has been given a Central Contract and I am sure he will answer all his critics including those on this board.
However, why is Strauss singled out as the likely candidate to be dropped? Surely Ian Bell's record should also come under more scrutiny!
In Tests, he has scored centuries only when another player has scored a century - he has not scored a century under very high pressure - as Cook, Strauss, Vaughan, Pietersen and Collingwood have all done.
In ODIs, he has flattered to deceive and putting him in as an opener seems like a final throw of the dice for a player that just does not deliver the results in the middle order.
Complain about this comment
To this traditional cricket lover and ex player the whole concept of 20/20 cricket debases the game as a whole and how the authorities have got themselves into bed with the self publicist Mr Stanford beggars belief.
I sincerely hope that my gut feeling about 20/20 being a flash in the pan is borne out and that Mr Stanford discovers that our beautiful game is not a cash cow for his personal aggrandisement and that the ECB are given a rude awakening that there is only so much tinkering that the public will countenance.
Test Cricket as played by the top 4 or 5 countries at the moment is what the game is all about.
Complain about this comment
money in sport....stinks.
Complain about this comment
I have listened to Aggers all Summer on this Stanforrd issue and I honestly think he has got things completely out of proportion. There is and has always been since the emergence of Botham a differerntial level of reward for certain players in the gane (go back to Compton if you need to). So what? If 15 0r 11 or 3 players in the England set up get a super pay day for one or 10 games why do I care? I adore cricket, have supported Sussex and England for 30 of my 37 years and I won't change as long as I see commitment , unity, purpose and thrilling cricket. from England. Bradman, Sobers , Hutton. Boycott and even Grace would not have turned this down. Just constantly banging on about 'what happens if there are overthrows on the last ball' is frankly pointless. This has been the tone of every interview Aggers has done this year and tonight's Blog is just carrying on the theme. Let's see what happens to the overall England performance over the next 3 years before we judge tthis thing. I don't fancy it much myself but please Aggers let it go - you are a great journo and broadcaster but you are getting obsessed. Uppy.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree about the divisive and tasteless aspect of this tournament in principle, I cannot help but feel that this extra incentive (cash) has spurred the England players on in the one-dayers against SA, and that was one motivating factor behind the series win.
I hope I am wrong about that, as I don't believe for a second that this deal will ultimately be good for world cricket in general. I was an avid football fan for a number of years and saw it get destroyed by the influx of huge amounts of money, and have now almost completely lost interest in the game. This may be a very pessimistic view, but I hope this does not happen to cricket.
Re: Michael Vaughan. I am disappointed that he's got a central contract to be honest. And I certainly don't see how Andrew Strauss's place is under threat from him. At the moment he's just not good enough. Not giving him a central contract would have made him more determined to get his place back. Now he has a safety net.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately Cricket costs a lot to finance at First class levels and without the Sky money it would slowly die a protracted death...with notable organisations like the Beeb, ITV and C4 only interested in financing tawdry reality shows there is no real choice but to sell the game to the highest bidder.
I too hope that money will not ruin the game I love...but, international players will not play for love of the game nowadays and this is a fact we must face and embrace in the long run to ensure the surviavl of the greatest game in the World.
Complain about this comment
Aggers' article was, as usual very perceptive. I confess I find the whole Stanford Twenty20 issue a bit confusing, but this may be because I haven't made much effort to understand it.
So I think Aggers hits the nail on the head when he says:
"There will, of course, be some sort of macabre interest in this first match of its kind but of much greater importance to me is the discovery over the coming months of exactly what the deal is between the ECB and Sir Allen Stanford, particularly the depth of his involvement in the English Premier League."
Noone can have a problem with lots of losh coming into the game, even if it's only for a sideshow, if a good chunk of it trickles down, or up (!), to where it's really needed. The danger that the ECB might, over time, lose its rights to the organisation, regulation and broadcasting of the T20 events must be very real. I can see no other way of interpreting Aggers' words.
Complain about this comment
On reflection, Mega Spur you make an excellent point. Hopefully in the next year or so we will know more about what is going to be done with the money. Hopefully we will see an end product.
Complain about this comment
I am assuming that with Vaughan being offered a central contract, the most mickey mouse decision in eth history of cricket, any England player dropped to make way for him as the right of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Thanks to his appalling form both for England and the embarrassed Yorkshire who were forced to take him back, his lack of motivation, the negative effect he dispels all around him, a central contract was on the cards for a man who on current form should be in the 2nd X1 of a minor county.
More madness of King George from England's selectors who have shown that they are totally devoid of any reality. Peterson's girlfriend would have been a better selection than Vaughan and would have almost certainly scored more runs!
What a complete nonesense decision.
Baztheace
Complain about this comment
#48, I totally agree. Awarding central contracts on form is ridiculous, just look how Bell and Collingwood have been in and out of form in the space of a few weeks.
Whether Vaughan can recapture the phenomenal levels of performance of his pre-captaincy days is open to debate but he has been a fantastic servant to English cricket, has been our most successful captain and deserves the faith of the selectors for another year.
Complain about this comment
if as seems to be the concensous with no one liking Sandford, then the answer is very simple. simply do not follow the match in any way shape or form. make it a PR disaster for this profit munching Yank. ok i accept the media might cover it the first time, but if the there is no demand or interest from the public no one will care about future matches. we are very good at whinging and whining but perhaps we should try and for once actually do something.
Complain about this comment
Well said Aggers. The Stanford 20/20 is the most vile display of international cricket we are ever likely to see. The rifts that could be created in the squad are unimaginable and a lot of people could come to regret signing up to it.
No matter what any player may say about being professional if they are not picked, in a situation where this could set up some people financially for life, there are bound to be damaged relationships within the team.
As for Vaughan I think if he can prove himself then he is worth Strauss' place. Provided that he can step aside on the pitch and let KP do his job. It will be tough for Vaughan not to think "well I would do such and such" during a match and that will be a huge test for him.
Complain about this comment
What is the problem? A billionaire wants to throw some money at some lucky England players. The current ODI squad are the fortunate players who stand to benefit, whick is fair and logical. Would be nicer if the cash were shared out a bit more but why look a gift horse in the mouth? No one will "lose" from this initiative, some people may gain a lot. Seems like an old English attitude of pulling down the rich instead of helping up the poor is the cause of most of the complaints. I say good luck to them, and hope it inspires greater efforts to win places in the future.
Of course they still have to win or it all comes to nothing anyway...
Complain about this comment
Hi uppy77, #63; I read your post several times because I thought it was very interesting.
There may have been differential levels of remuneration of cricketers since the days of Botham, maybe even Compton, as in any top-level sporting activity. But I very much doubt whether the differential was ever much more than 3,4 or five to one, much less I suspect.
Today's situation is on a completely different plane and, even if some of the imaginary situations which might give rise to conflicts between players have been a bit exaggerated, it is easy to understand how they might happen in the current environment and they make good press fodder.
On the whole, I welcome changes, even such radical ones as this in our beloved game. I have never had any wish to miss seeing that a steamroller was coming and fail to get out of its way.
Like you, I have been following cricket for a very long time, in my case Somerset, that me dad played for once.
I seriously think that we cricket-lovers must be vigilant to ensure that the Twenty20 obsession does not leave us all widowers (or widows), having lost our beloved to some filthy rich ba....d.
My previous posting, #66, a little more measured than this one in its final cadences, refers.
Complain about this comment
Yeah , I know, (the bit about widows and widowers) but some times you have to say ridiculous things to get people to sit up and listen and REPLY.
Another way of getting a fairly rapid response is to complain about the poor use of the English language ( nothing new there) and especially of internet slang in the BBC blogs. You only have to tell people they have no idea what lol or LOL means for them to come crashing down on your head. Curiously, I can't remember seeing lol or LOL used n the cricket blogs. It is the football fans who are especially adept at this kind of thing.
LOL.
Complain about this comment
It seems I may be on a hat-trick, three uninterrupted contributions in succession, so I will mention the decision to continue to give Michael Vaughan a central contract. I can understand where this is coming from and I respect your view Aggers, but NO, it is not the right thing to do.
Michael Vaughan resigned, not so much because his captaincy was being questioned , but because he had completely lost his touch as one of the most elegant and effective English batsmen of recent years. Is he likely to be able to regain his form at Yorkshire? Doesn't look like it. And if he goes to Hampshire? Don't think so. Maybe he should come down to Somerset where runs flow off the bat like water off a duck's back.
Seriously, nothing would please me more than to see Vaughany doing well again, really well, well enough to get back in the Test team. He could be a very good England opening batsman again, almost certainly his best position in the batting order, even if he couldn't expect to occupy that position at Somerset (Tresco, Langer, the best opening pair in English county cricket).
So I really don't see why he should enjoy a central contract.
Complain about this comment
The problem I have with the ECB is not coming up with the idea ( or at least another idea)in the first place! The "divisive" selection issue is one that is made day in day out in all forms of professional life. You get the job or you don't get the job.
So, Mr Agnew, don't blame the ECB for having put the selectors in the invidious position of having to select a team. Why not blame them of being too slow to catch a cold.
Money is at the core of the decision making process to stage the series, and why not this is a professional sport. Stanford is merely a conduit for TV money, he is not a philanthropist, call him the WIPL if you like.
However, I am very sad that cricket is in danger of being fully controlled by TV, but at least the ECB are naive enough to not realise it. Whereas the subcontinent's boards have embraced TV and will soon be under their thumbs, then next it will be the ICC............
Complain about this comment
Why all this ranting about money in cricket? We can have both money and good cricket.
Would you like to go back 50 years when legendary players had to do humiliating work just to feed their families in winter? Anyone who thinks that money in sport is a terrible thing, please respond to the following.
1. You are unemployed.
2. You will get no dole.
3. You should not complain, after all, everything should not be about money.
Good on yer England Players, milk Stanford for all he is worth.
Complain about this comment
Stanford, ICL et all are good for the game. More cricket means more opportunity for lower level players to play county cricket.
As a Nottinghamshire fan my example is Sidebottom and Broad (and others) who rarely play for the county so others get the chance to play.
You could 'nit pick' that example, but my point is that more cricket means more players. Remember in the 60's and 70's many were predicting the demise of cricket. The game is now flourishing and all these different formats of the game are the reason.
Complain about this comment
To be honest I think the England team has moved on in the short time since Vaughan retired as Captain. His form does not justify a recall and it is hard to see where they are going to slot him in even if he does start batting like a millionaire (sorry, probably not the right simile these days!).
A contract seems to be a reward for past services. His future in cricket probably lies in a management/selectorial role particularly with the Ashes on the horizon.
Complain about this comment
Re Oldmanwillow's post - yest just to clarify I am with you on 20/20. I dont particularly like or dislike it, have been to Hove a few times and to be honest its a good night out. But it isnt nor will it ever be cricket. We need to preserve Test cricket in all its glory its the greatest game of all. I think 20/20 will continue to be popular but the British public are not stupid. I still talk about things I saw at Test matches 20 years ago. I cant remmember a single ball of the 10 or so 20/20 games I watched on TV this year. Quite what Stanford's motives are or who the hell he thinks he is to start messing with our game - well I have to agree with Aggers on that.
Uppy
Complain about this comment
I agree with you no 68, how on earth in any fair and decent world can Vaughan be given a central contract. I've been listening to all this, he's a great captain, form is temporary tosh and it's harder in tests than county cricket for ages. Well Vaughan isn't captain anymore and he's back playing county cricket, where many players have excelled this year and his form is just as pathetic as it has been for England but these other players don't get a look in because it's still a private club run by buffoons. There is a funny smell around this current England team which people are overlooking because we've been successful against a SA team that have played very poorly. Don't people notice the way Pietersen's friends are all getting chance after chance. One good innings from Colly and his terrible recent form is overlooked and even worse no good innings from Vaughan and he still gets a lucrative undeserved central contract if Denley had been bought in and had 2 poor matches he'd have to wait 3 years and score a dozen ceturies before he'd get another sniff but for others, oh yes that's right they've played well in the past and they're chummy with the powers that be, so let them have some more undeserved gravy.
Complain about this comment
Can't agree with you about Vaughan. He has not been the same batsman for 3 odd years in my opinion, with the very off excpetional innings. I can't believe any impartial observer would not think Shah is better placed to be first reserve batter for the team. There is no evidence that Vaughan will be able to re-discover his form at Test level therefore this decision is just a very expensive punt.
Complain about this comment
Happy for Vaughan to retain his contract - he may be out of form but who would've batted Freddie at five in the ODI's?
Having said that, the 20/20 selection does seem to be based solely on a) ensuring the established players can get their money and b) keeping them away from the IPL which obviously won't work anyway. Cook? In a 20/20 squad? Surely its bowling all-rounders you want if you're genuinely picking a squad to win the thing - Napier, Mascarenhas etc.
Can't help but thinking 81 has a valid point about the same old players getting chance after chance - the powers that be just couldn't bring themselves to leave anyone out.
Complain about this comment
The most sensible way to avoid divisiveness is to follow the lead of the great Bobby Moore. According to the biog of Jimmy Armfield, BM was asked immediately after the 66' World Cup Final how the bonus pool of 22,000 should be divided. His reply was "thats easy 22 players in the squad 1,000 each" even though some squad members had not featured in a single game. However I understand this has been explicitly forbidden under the Stanford contract is this correct? If so this appears to either be completely gauche or deliberately confrontational which says something about the character of our new "benefactor".
Complain about this comment
Hmm, I've just had another look at the squad and, apart from Cook, it looks about right after all.
But where's Pattinson??!!
One chance and they've kicked him to the kerb already...
Complain about this comment
central contract for vaughan and harmison in the stanford squad - jobs for the boys!
Complain about this comment
Aggers - I fear you are taking a slightly narrow-minded view of the Stanford circus. Surely any effort to boost the game in West Indies - where as we all know cricket faces competition from basketball, football and athletics - and maybe even the US, is to be welcomed? I'm not a big fan of 20/20 (I find it boring) but the fact is it's going to be the way to bring new fans into the game in the future.
As for Vaughan, it's a brave decision but I agree the right one. If we're going to get the Ashes back next summer I think it will be with a resurgent MV opening the batting.
Complain about this comment
Great set of responses!
If the fact that 2 teams will play for one of the biggest pots in sport shines a spotlight on Cricket, fantastic.
If this game gets a slot on network news in the states and a little interest is created, brilliant.
If Cricket as a whole benefits who cares if the current crop of players stand to make a few quid out of it - $1,000,000 (£566,000ish) is enough to pay of their mortgages and make their very long retirements more comfortable but put it into perspective. By my calculations £566,000 equates to 5 weeks work for a top professional footballer. That professional footballer will earn that every 5 weeks making about £8m a year ($16.5m) - this Stanford game is once a year for 5 years, very few players in this first one will be around to see the payday in the last one. Don't get me wrong it's a shedfull of cash but don't grudge them the oportunity.
As for the other arguements about the EWCB selling it's soul to the devil and accusing Stanford of bigging himself up, I think it would be better to wait and see the outcome.
Don't forget they haven't won the cash yet!
Complain about this comment
Think this whole circus is a bad day not just for cricket, but for sport.
A million quid to beat one of the poorer sides in world cricket - complete nonsense, and anyone who says this will not drive a massive wedge into the palying fraternity is deluded. This whole business is mercenary, which is the complete antithesis to team sport.
With big bucks comes big temptation - Cronje and Gibbs are testament to that - who knows what players will be tempted to do - pull out of a county game, even an england game here to rest, drop a catch for an extra few quid? Its a possibility, and I like Aggers find the whole situation distasteful - mainly because players will be playing as individuals, looking to see what they can do next, and the team, especially thier counties which have out them in that position in the first place, will be left in thier wake.
Complain about this comment
RE Number 13.
I played Club Cricket in England with Rayon Griffith (Guyana). He was part of the Guyana squad to win the first ever Stanford T20.
The whole squad and coaches etc, agreed to split the winnings equally between them.
Even man of the match monies all went into a pool, and was split at the end of the tournament.
Complain about this comment
36 You ask:
'Why must everyone approach this subject in quite such a melancholic and pessimistic tone'
and round off your post with a rather blase:
'Professional cricket will continue to provide an enjoyable spectacle regardless of the money'
to which I wholeheartedly disagree.
The moment the IPL was conceived with the backing of huge sponsorship revenue the writing was on the wall for cricket as we enjoy it now.
New Zealand have led the way in what is likely to happen to the test form of the game insofar as we have had players retiring from test cricket earlier than would have been the case, and players including their captain joining the tour party for this year's tour to England at the last minute to satisfy their IPL commitments.
The power of the IPL to disrupt other forms of the game doesn't stop there either. Sri Lanka were invited to England to cover for Zimbabwe not too long ago. At first everything seemed fine, the fixtures were pencilled in, both national boards were in agreement and then, of course, many of the Sri Lankan players realised the new fixtures would clash with their IPL commitments. I've not heard whether the problems were resolved but the power of the IPL to disrupt test cricket is obvious.
We have had the ECB and other cricket boards cowering at the Indian Cricket Council as they have woken up to the power of that old chestnut 'money talks' and the rather ludicrous situation of the ECB now trying to act like King Canute in a vain attempt to turn the inevitable tide of India's IPL controlling the game.
Perhaps Indian control with their HUGE fan base is no bad thing? Perhaps, but rather than acting in the interests of cricket this shift of power acts only in the interests of money. All in all what is happening to the game smacks of a coup by proxy - a coup by corporations. When was the last time a corporation you know acted altruistically without any thought for itself or profit?
I fear we may see a split in the game in the near future akin to rugby football with one form of the game, governed by money and TV rights breaking away to become a game in its own right; with rule changes to satisfy sponsors and television stations' requirements and perhaps even separate cricket councils governing the 20/20 game.
That would leave the traditional form of the game with a depleted grass roots base, and an ever-diminishing crop of youngsters coming up through a weakened infrastructure.
You might still say 'so what' in which case, good luck to you. For myself, test cricket is the absolute pinnacle of the game. I once tried to explain to an American how it is possible to play a game for 5 days and still get a draw. He just didn't get it. To him, something wasn't worth watching unless there was a hit of instant gratification every few minutes and an assured result. He wouldn't understand the romance, history, tension, drama and sheer battle of wills that is test cricket - not that that's his fault, of course.
In some countries, test cricket has withered on the vine somewhat, as evidenced by poor match attendances, decreased numbers of fixtures (the amount of tests New Zealand has played in the past few years is a joke) and the popularity of other sports. IMHO, test cricket now faces, at best, an uncertain future kowtowing to the 20/20 format, and at worst a fight for its very existence.
Complain about this comment
Ref No.89
I hate what football has become. However, in football each player has their own, individually negotiated contract. Everyone in the team has a different pay scale and I'm sure there is quite a difference between what they earn. In some cases the highest paid players get lambasted for their performances, effort, commitment etc but there doesn't seem to be a high level of disharmoney amongst team mates over how much they earn. If it was rife we'd read about it - football is the most reported upon sport after all.
Maybe, just maybe, the fact that the rewards at the top of the game are so massive it will inspire the rank and file county player to up their performances to put themselves in contention. This is the exact oposite of football where the clubs provide the vast majority of a players income and the cash incentive to play for England (for example) is minimal.
I don't know how things will turn out but one should trust the professionalism and integrety of the players. Afterall the temptation to take a bung of some description must be greater without $1m dollars in your pocket than with it! Cronje's actions were actually testament to the temptations of bribes from bookmakers in a pre-20/20 world of cricket where the rewards were not as high. The loss of a career in cricket in the 90's was less of a financial risk than it would be now. Also, any inducements offered to a player now would need to be massive. Didn't Cronje accept one for £5000 and a leather jacket? I can't see that being very tempting to anyone now.
Complain about this comment
No 91
A very well written, articulate, and mostly acurate post.
However, I disagree regarding your comparison to T20 and Rugby League.
The two codes of Rugby have always been separate (League being a Northern Sport, traditionally for the working class along the M62 corridor - Union being more of a Southern Public School Boy affair) - Therefore this can not be used as a direct comparison to Cricket and the T20 revolution.
Furthermore, Test cricket in England, and Australia is still, and always will be the pinnacle of the game. (New Zealand's lack of Test Cricket is a disgrace. Maybe the ICC should sanction a ruling, stating that countries playing less than X amount of Tests can't compete in ODI Tournaments????)
T20 will continue to grow, but will never surpass Tests Matches in England or Australia.
Real cricket fans appreciate the Test format, and will always watch. Whereas the corporate football fans engulfing T20 won't sustain the popularity increase of the past 12 months. Interest will wain. (Only in the sub-continent might it continue).
Then there are the players.
All sports men want to test themselves. You can only truly do that in a Test Match. They aren't exactly paupers are they. So I beleive that they will ultimately choose Central Contracts over the IPL. (Well, most of them).
Complain about this comment
RE number 81.
I understand your point.
However, you pick the team which you beleive has the best chance of winning.
We KNOW M.P. Vaughan can score big match winning hundreds regardless of the bowling. (Just because he hasn't recently, doesn't meen he won't. The key is that he CAN).
The selectors are looking at next summer's Ashes. And they are fully aware, that to win them, they need a strong batting unit. And someone who can score big hundreds.
They are therefore going for Vaughan, who could well smash 166 like he did in 2005, or 197 like in 2002/03, or 188 like in 2002/03.
He has pedigree against the Aussies.
I'd rather have Vaughan batting for my life in a Test Match against the Aussies than Shah, Ramprakash, or anyone else currently playing.
You may well disagree with the selectors choice for Vaughans central contract. But I'm sure they are far more qualified to make that decision.
Complain about this comment
Aggers is right,what a divisive selection that smacks of jobs for the boys. Firstly,no specialist batsman who is not a big hitter should ever be selected for 20-20 oe even limited overs given power plays in the opening overs so how can selecting Mr Alistair Cook be in the best interests of England??? White washing South Africa does give most of that squad the rights to play this Stanford game,and the obvious improvement to the side would be the addition of KP´s Hampshire captain Dimi,the only Englishman to play IPL so far.
I dont know Michael Vaughan personally, so I can appreciate the desire of his friends to see him do well.Unfortunately the past 3 years of his career have seen such an array of low scores as to make it impossible to forsee any future return to form or even justify him a place in the Yorkshire first XI other than the drawcard of his name. At a time when there are many superb cricketers playing the county game there are no shortage of talented in form batsmen worthy of a place in our lineup who will score runs if selected.Hopefully this final central contract is no more than a pension payoff,perhaps in the new years honours list a grateful nation can make him Sir Michael and a career on Sky beckons I hope. Never again in our batting lineup, professional cricket is a young mans game and few remain at the highest level for more than 5 years, and now England needs her best players, not the selectors old chums (unless perhaps Sir Alec Bedser would make himself available to captain England for the Ashes )
Complain about this comment
Either Jonathan Agnew lives so far in past that his ability to contribute to a blog is nothing short of miraculous or his objections to Stanford are borne of sour grapes! Professional sportsmen and women reap justifiably large rewards for their skill and athleticism, why should cricket be any different? The selection will not be tasteless (unless one is driven by gnawing jealousy) and it will not be divisive - currently, high profile cricketers receive generous sponsorship deals, but only if they are first selected for the starting 11 of their country; does the non-selection of the 'nearly-men' cause division? No, of course it doesn't and neither will Stanford. I wish that just for once, Agnew would at least try to see the positive side of something..... anything!
Complain about this comment
Fair comment on Stanford Aggers,but, even if it has no revelance to many a purist you can be sure that the grounds will be packed, American people will start to sit up and take notice and the players, if they win, will earn a nice few bob. In todays world there aint anything wrong with that.
With regards to the general 20/20 debate. Have you ever tried to get a ticket for a 20/20? They're like gold dust, the grounds are packed, full of families, having a great few hours of exciting cricket (as they see it). It exposes a lot of new people to cricket and brings in valuable revenue to the Counties.
The "Establishment" stronghold on cricket is slowly being eroded, and they, worst of all cannot tolerate change. The game as a whole needs running "professionally" rather than the "old farts" in the MCC et al messing things up.
I agree, however, about Sky and money. It has destroyed premier league football, leaving the average fan disillusioned and returning to watch "grass roots" football in lower leagues for genuine entertainment.
Regarding the Michael Vaughan debate, no, he should not have got a central contract. 29 in three innings does not bode well. Good servant, yes, but so was Hoggy. Shah should have been given it and MV on the incremental.
Cook in the ODI'S and 20/20,? for Gods sake why?....he's a Test specialist, same as Strauss (when he learns to bat again!)
So, whats the answer, dunno really, but, for sure, it's going to be a very interesting journey!
Complain about this comment
I take an interest in cricket, but as I am scottish, living in scotland there are many aspects I dont understand.
Firstly, what is Stanford going to gain from putting his money into these matches? It seems a bit crazy to me. Is he the Abramovich of the cricket world? Secondly, why is this such a bad thing?
Any time I hear Jonathan Agnew speak he is always moaning, he is never ever happy about anything in cricket. Im not going to take his opinion into account but I am not surprised many here agree with him.
Agnew is a leading example of the stuffy, backward impression that I often see represnting cricket. Cricket could be a big game in Scotland but my fellow countrymen are never going to buy into a game that is almost repressed by people like Agnew.
I disagree on both his points here. The chance for cricketers to earn a bit of extra cash surely isnt a bad thing. Will the ECB gain cash or is it all going to the players.
Secondly, I totally disagree with Vaughan getting a central contract. He is showing no form so perhaps it would be best to give him a year out to concentrate on getting his game together again.
Complain about this comment
MV was the finest opening batsman in the
world some years ago in Australia and a joy to watch. Great players in their prime usually are. He was also a good captain (no more) and can take credit for
captaining the Ashes-winning side in 2005.
However, as a current player, he does not deserve a central contract. He would not be picked for any county side at present, and to pretend otherwise is an insult to any
cricket fan.
Complain about this comment
I refer to comment 71 about how devicive giving a slect few the oportnity to set themselves up for life.
This is 1 million dollars not pounds. Just over half a million quid is not going to go very far if, like most professional, sportsmen you are retired by 35.
Half a million quid to support yourself until your 80 - just over 11 grand a year! get a grip, your average footballer loses that playing cards on the way to a match. (Yes, I know there are investment possibilities)
Us normal guy's who don't earn hundreds of thousands of pounds a minute find it hard to look at these sort of sums rationally.
I begrudge soccer players what they earn because it seems to me that playing for England is less important to tham than it should be. I don't think that the same can be said of the English cricket team. The highest paid players are the centrally contracted ones and to be centrally contracted takes some doing (I am not going to comment on MV here) Therefore, in cricket the accolades, the prestige the money are all focussed towards the elite end of the sport.
Doesn't that mean that the incentive is there for whichever type of person you are to reach the highest level?
Did Ryan Sidebottom run in for 5 years hoping to get back into the test team because he needed the money or because he was driven to greater things within his chosen profession?
I don't care what the answer is to that question. He did enough hard graft to get where he's got whatever his motivation and deserves all he gets for his effort and ability. (Mr Sidebottom's name having been plucked out of the sky. No implication intended)
As an ex-girlfriend of mine once said "don't knock it 'til you've tried it"
Complain about this comment
Regarding M.P. Vaughan.
He hasn't been given a central contract due to form (obviously).
He has been given one, because the selectors (who know a damn sight more than anyone who's posted on here) think he's one of the only batsmen in the country who can score big runs against the Aussies.
THAT IS WHY.
Is there a reason anybody doesn't understand that?
Please refer to comment 94 above.
Complain about this comment
test
Complain about this comment
MV couldnt score big runs against Zimbabwe at the moment, let alone the aussies.
Complain about this comment
I agree with comments relating to Alistair Cook's inclusion and think that Mssrs Napier Key and Denly can consider themselves very unlucky. I do however take issue with the theme of your piece. To suggest that the selection is devisive is to undermine the coach and especially the captains wishes. You have argued in the past that it is essential that the captain takes to the field with the side he wants and the confidence that they will support him and his decision making. Your column suggests selection has been made with anything but this in mind and therefore is it your suggestion that Pieterson, Moores and Miller be relieved of their positions for contriving this selection? I think not and I also feel your argument holds all the weight of a feather. You normally contribute a lot of sense in your comments but I feel this time the selections are basically right and I have never seen a selection of a squad yet that didn't have one mistake in it.
Complain about this comment
Mixed feelings about Vaughan's central contract. For the massive contribution to England he's made - I've no problem with that. However, to me, central contracts are all about looking forward.
We now have to forget about Vaughan's captaincy - he's never going to captain England again so we have to look at his last 12 months as a batsman as a guide to how he might fare over the next 12 months.
To my mind, Vaughan is a touch player - not a run machine so his average is no guideline - he's as likely to get 0 as 100. Off the top of my head - he got big runs against India at Trent Bridge last year. I particularly remember that knock for how brilliantly he played Kumble and that counts a lot with India coming up again this Christmas. He struggled in NZ - but got some pretty good deliveries before his one hundred at Lord's against NZ and then precious little else against SAF.
Is this enough to justify his new contract given he's not picked for his bowling or fielding? The answer in my opinion is probably not - and on that basis without runs in domestic matches between now and the rest of the season (with time fast running out) it's looking very unlikely he'll make the touring squad (for tests).
It would be a shame to say he's played his last test - and as I say for his contribution - I'm happy to let him have another year of cash. But if the selectors are harsh (as they certainly have been with Vaughan's contryman Hoggard whose form has dipped similarly to Vaughan's) then he doesn't deserve a central contract.
Complain about this comment
93- I've just taken some time to respond to your post but, the BBC site seems to take exception to it.
Not sure why.
I draw direct parallels between the EPL and the burgeoning IPL where the motivation in both cases is money.
Football has become a commodity in this country - or a carefully packaged product with fans being marginalised to the extent that they have gone off and set their own clubs up! Cricket is now set to follow.
When the likes of Kevin Pietersen say "I need to put my kids through school' watch out because it's not too far a leap of faith for someone to retire from test cricket early if the price is right.
By the way, if I may pull you up on your correction of Rugby not splitting - it split in Aug 1895, the motivation for the split was that the working class northern clubs were angry at not being allowed to go pro. So, money split a national sport 100 or so years ago; I speculate that money has the potential to split another of our national sports now. :)
Complain about this comment
Well, this is what I wanted to be like...Michael Vaughan in the side but not as a captain....
we have seen the best of MV the batsman when he was not the skipper....
He did a good job as the skipper but it certainly did take toll on his batting....
Hope he gets selected in the Test team and gets another crack...
Complain about this comment
There seems to be some confusion about what Aggers means by "a divisive and tasteless selection".
He's referring to how the 4 players left out of the final XI will feel if England win and the 11 players become millionaires.
Complain about this comment
I feel immensely sad that cricket is following; not a run chase; but a chase for cash. I understand that over the years cricket has ivolved - how sad that it looks as if the biggest wallet will win the day. I sat in some very rare sunshine the other day and watched a club match, it reminded me why I love cricket so much. naturally the standard wasn't so great, but what joy to see young and old players 'playing the game' lets hope that sense will prevail, however pessimistic many of us feel at the moment.
Complain about this comment
I understand and mostly agree with all the comments about Vaughan fighting for his place and having the chance to get back in the Test Time.
That said I can not agree with him having a central contract, simply because, what message does that send out to the rest of the players in County Cricket.
Seems like its harder to get out of the England set-up than in it!
As for the Standford Game, I'm afraid most of you are living in the past!... there will be more and more money flowing in the game, you may not like it but that's life and Criket for the foreseable future. - if you dont like it, perhaps you should just go down to the village green.
Finally, I'm amused about all this talk about how will players feel and what they'll spend their 20 pieces of silver on...... er. they have to win first! I propose they wont!
Complain about this comment
If I'm honest, my only surprise is that Aggers comments on the nature of the Stamford match have been made now and not earlier in the summer when this was first announced. From the start of this farce I've been amazed at the lack of negativity in the media about this (Excluding Sky Sports, of course, who have a match to promote so are unlikely to dig the boot in).
The negative influences of this game were never more evident, in my opinion, than at the beginning of the ODI series against New Zealand earlier in the Summer. In both the Twenty20 and first ODI Post match interview with Pietersen (Pre captain days) when he was interviewed for Man of the Match, his response was very much a case of 'none of this matters, all we want to do is cement our place in the Stamford team'. To me, this gave the impression of a squad of individuals working alone to secure their potential big payday.
Hopefully, the one off aspect of this match will not be sufficient to cause a genuine risk, mitigated perhaps by the EPL providing sufficient opportunities to provide decent opportunities for fringe players to still earn some respectable money from the game. I can't see this in a 20 team structure though, the money simply isn't there to go around that many players (presumably with a significant number of overseas players coming in).
However, if the EPL is a success in the medium term it will hopefully mean that the Stamford series is merely a 5 year bridge between the two worlds of cricket, and proven to be unneccesary and artificial exercise in solving a problem (the exclusion from the IPL) that is resolved.
Complain about this comment
I am absoloutely amazed to see Vaughan get a central contract, and the 2 keepers. I know he doesn't have a great county cricket record, and that begs the question how on earth is he going to get back into the team? His inability to play the straight ball satisfactorily in the last couple of years have certainly made him look like a man about to leave the game. Without a significant amount of runs you can't just bring him back for England. This reeks of contracts being given out for the benefit of the players, rather than the team or the system.
As everyone has always said, due to the intense inefficiencies in the way the game is run in this country, the more money that comes in to it from things like Stanfords nonsense, the more that will go straight back out in player wages, and the more obese and uncompetitive everything will become
Complain about this comment
Having read all the comments about Michael Vaughan I feel that I have to make a comment:
He has been a great ambassador for the sport over the last few years and has been the most successful captain in the history of the game - fact
He is a world class batsman - sadly out of form - fact
But cricket is a game for heroes and KP and Freddie are todays heroes... funnily enough I can remember defending Freddie a short while ago using the " class is permanent" quote and I was told by one punter that I was talking rubbish! or words to that affect, as I did with Harmie..
Give MV his chance he deserves it as does KP (its too early to say if he's the man but I am willing to wait) if in 12 months time MV has not proven himself he will retire with his best behind him ... but discard him at your own peril - he will be back.. class remains...
Complain about this comment
20/twenty is great cricket. It's fun and very exciting. I've stared to notice that the better teams keep winning in any format of the game. Test cricket is great but the championship is as limp as old lettuce. Would Aggers prefer three old ladies and a dog at a rained off Derbyshire game in Div 2 or a capacity filled stadium and hundreds of millions of TV viewers watching exciting 20/20 Cricket worldwide?
Why such as Friendly, knowledgeable and open minded person such as Aggers constantly runs down the most popular form of the game I don't know. I'd much rather my son grows up watching 20/twenty and then sees the extra dimensions of test and county cricket and follows that too, than ends up following some silly nonsense like tiddlywinks or football.
Come on Aggers get behind the greatest sport in the whole world and that’s Cricket in any of it’s forms and stop moaning.
Complain about this comment
The Stanford tournament is basically high-class prostitution and Stanford is a high-class pimp. There is 'something of the whore in all of us', though, I suppose. The lack of criticism from commentators is worrying. Maybe there is a hidden agenda or secret payouts for those who keep quiet?
Complain about this comment
I find it ridiculous that England is partcipating in this rather silly little tournament. Players like Collingwood and Bell who have put there all in to England (albeit with mixed success) will be denied this chance of filthy lucre as they won't be considered exciting enough.
There is one simple remedy though - the players themselves agree to distribute any winnings evenly among all current members of the squad, independently of the ECB. That would truly be gentlemanly conduct.
Complain about this comment
As i stated on a previous blog Messrs Clarke and Collier are dangerous !
First Class and Test Cricket are the absolute 'bedrock' of the greatest game that God ever put breath into ! Cricket i fear is in a very precarious position at this moment in time and will be destroyed as has football been by financial greed by all involved.
The 'Spirit of Cricket' i am afraid is on the wane !
Complain about this comment
I don't think anyone begrudges players earning money, certainly not Aggers, so anyone labouring under the impression that the thrust of JA's blog is about that is mistaken. We all know that footballers, golfers and tennis players can earn big bucks, so why not cricketers?
No, the main issue here is that for around 56 million quid (nothing to a billionaire really) Stanford has:
1. Bought the England cricket team for one week every year for the next 5 years
2. Bought the naming rights for one of the EPL's divisions. (wonder what he'll call it?)
3. Bought the right to enter his own 'Stanford XI' in the EPL (no guarantee that they have to be cricketers either for all we know)
4. Effectively bought the right to be the sole sponsor of the EPL (he has the 'right to outbid' any other potential sponsor). This means he effectively owns it all. The ECB appears to have nothing left to sell.
What does that mean? It means that the ECB has sold the family silver, in the form of the EPL, to Mr Stanford. What does he get out of it? When you're the sole sponsor of a major premier league in any sport, it means all the commercials and merchandising and TV are advertising you and your product alongside the game. The only sources of revenue from the EPL will come from TV (Sky) and Stanford.
56 million also isn't much compared to the 400 million the IPL got just for selling their 8 franchises.
As Aggers points out, there may be other surprises in the Stanford deal but the ECB aren't saying. For all we know, every player will have to wear sequins, stetsons and have Stanford's smiling face emblazoned on the back of their sparkly sweaters.
And the ECB apparently signed the deal to prevent England's players from taking part in the IPL on the grounds they wouldn't need the IPL's money, a carrot instead of a stick. Alas, like certain biscuits, one carrot is never enough.
Complain about this comment
In reply to the class is permanent line about Vaughan, and that he has shown the ability to score important tons in the past, that is undeniably true, and so clearly then the reason for his decline has been application.
The situation with his technical flaw began before the last ashes at home, where he already was starting to fail to push the bat through straight and consequently inexplicably missing straight balls. Even in the big innings he made during that series he was clean bowled, but fortunately on a no bowl. What he has failed to do most notably since is contribute during his struggles, and with no top order stroke maker to feed off following the demise of Banger, we've seen him generally struggle until eventually falling foul of his weakness and missing a straight one or giving his wicket away out of frustration.
As has been pointed out by others, it is noticeable that these days his bat does not have the tell tale marks it used to have which he himself used to say was due to hours spent on the practise machine working on his techinque. How and Why is that old application going to come back now? It may in time without the captaincy, but this winter should logically be spent by him getting his game in order away from the test team and then see where he is during next summer. That time, as with anyone proving themselves, shouldn't be spent under central contract
Complain about this comment
No 111,
I too took extreme offence at the KP comments earlier in the year about securing his place in the Stanford team. However, I hope his new found status as captain will encourage him to choose his words more carefully in the future about such sensitive subjects.
None of this situation is the fault of the players. I am sure all the current crop went into cricket because it was their dream to play the game and hopefully represent their country. They have all been dedicated and worked their butt off to achieve this. The politics of 20/20 are the creation of the administrators.
The players are the public face of the game. It is absolutely horrible to think that the joy of taking a wicket for England will make viewers feel that "He's just smiling cos of the cash".
I thought the whole idea of the match was to fund cricket development in the Caribbean. I really don't see why the England players can't have their usual match fee with the rest going into cricket development in this country.
KP, please take note. You have won my goodwill recently, but in the post match interview I don't want to hear ANYTHING about money!
Complain about this comment
Will people please stop spouting this class is permanent nonsense. Working on that assumption we would never drop any player who at some time had performed well, utter bunkum. If a player fails to perform a few times he should be dropped and go back to his county and play, if he does regain his form then consider him again, along with anyone else who might have impressed in the meantime. If like Vaughan he goes back to his county and performs just as ineptly as he has for his country he should not be considered. This living in the past is whats all wrong about British sport.
Complain about this comment
Several points:
It's Stanford's money, and he is quite entitled to take a "take it or leave it" attitude if he chooses. Would you rather have this money poured into the game or not?
I assume the cricket authorities did make some effort to get him to apply his wealth in a less "tasteless" manner and failed to persuade him. If they didn't even try, then shame on them.
I also wonder why the players don't make some private agreement to make it a little fairer--e.g., winner gives loser something, or all squad members get the same share. Perhaps it's forbidden by Stanford's conditions? If not, then shame on the players for not doing so.
Why is the ECB involved at all? It's a purely commercial venture that doesn't count (I assume) in the records as an international 20-20 match. Stanfortd's team is not the West Indies. I know it's called an "England XI" rather than straight "England," but it should not have been selected by the national selectors at all. It is just an exhibition game after all.
Complain about this comment
I completely agree about this being devisive. What happens if a sub is used? I can imagine a sub coming on and taking a brilliant catch that totaly changes the game and is the difference between losing and winning. Do they get the full fee or do they have to settle for the lower amount? Would it be fair for a batsman, who gets a duck and the drops a couple of catches, to get the full amount and the sub to get a quater?
Complain about this comment
Oh my May, Cowdrey, Graveney, Barrington Trueman, Statham of long, long ago!
Complain about this comment
I completely agree about this being devisive. What happens if a sub is used? I can imagine a sub coming on and taking a brilliant catch that totaly changes the game and is the difference between losing and winning. Do they get the full fee or do they have to settle for the lower amount? Would it be fair for a batsman, who gets a duck and the drops a couple of catches, to get the full amount and the sub to get a quater?
----------------------------------------
That reminds me of the Ashes triumph in 2005 when Collingwood (I think) played in just the last test, got a handful of runs, and an MBE as well.
Complain about this comment
Oh my May, Cowdrey, Graveney, Barrington, Trueman, Statham of long, long ago!
Complain about this comment
#118, FluterG: ABSOLUTELY! What exactly has been sold? It may turn out to be rather more than the family silver.
I liked your Stanfordian fancy dress!
Complain about this comment
Does anybody remember a certain player called Napier? you know, the one who score 16 sixes in his 150+ innings earlier this year. Well it just so happens that he has played outstandingly with bat and ball and is a key player in the short form of the game. Please could someone explain why he was not selected for this twenty 20?
it is the same old england i fear. they never select on form they always have a select few group of players.
The problem is the same with football!
it's not about the money for me. it's about selecting the best possible team to win.
i should think that Mr Napier will be quietly fuming about not even getting a look in.
Complain about this comment
Giving central contract to Geoff Boycott is an excellent and forward thinking move. 54 is a prime age for an opening bat. Form, as some bright spark said, is temporary, class is permanent. Perhaps 'Gracie' is still available?
Complain about this comment
After 11 years of being a decent journeyman, but no more, it should take more than one decent slog innings to get you into the England side.
Complain about this comment
i think you'll find that napier has had quite a few crucial innings and has also been taking wickets. more than just a one off innings
Complain about this comment
Best comment on here is No.20 from Newick_Gutty. As a club chairman, player, junior coach and father to two teen boys, the ECB has done everything possible to turn away potential young players from the sport - a gilt-edged opportunity given by the success of the Ashes 2005. Since then, every action taken has been to maximize revenue to the elite players (and presumably management) whilst tv access to the masses has been slashed and revenue to grass roots clubs and schools remains minimal and a beaurocratic (sp??) nightmare to obtain. I don't care about Stanford (though 'divisive' is appropriately the most commonly used adjective on this site) but I do care that thousands of youngsters are being lost to this glorious game.
Complain about this comment
get cricket back on freeview tv then maybe i'll care. until then its not like i'm able to watch any of it anyway!!!
Complain about this comment
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME AS TO WHY THE ECB WONT PERMIT ENGLAND PLAYERS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE IPL ?
Complain about this comment
JUST JEALOUSY OR IS THERE A MORE CONCRETE REASON ?
Complain about this comment
I'd have thought it is because the IPL clashes with the Sri Lanka tour.
And they hardly let their players play County cricket, so it looks like they just prefer to hang on to their players as tightly as possible.
Complain about this comment
"We KNOW M.P. Vaughan can score big match winning hundreds regardless of the bowling. (Just because he hasn't recently, doesn't meen he won't. The key is that he CAN)."
Possibly, however hell COULD freeze over before that happens.
And of course there is also the affect Vaughans inclusion might have on the team, because for sure he wont be able to resist sticking his oar in and possibly undermining KP,s captaincy.
It cant be a coinicdence that the team have all of a sudden started playing like a team with a positive driving force behind them, KP's influence id say, bringing Vaughan in would likely only hinder team spirit, not intentionally, but Vaughan as a international cricketing force is well and truely spent. It would be poor tactical planning to keep him hanging around on the off chance that he may make a big score some day.
Infact it would be the same kind of poor decision that see's Strauss's continual baffling inclusion. And before anyone plays the form is temporary class ...etc card, Strauss has glaring weaknesses that any class batsman would work on and eliminate, Strauss has tried and failed to address his problems, he is far to one dimensional, similar to a certain Geraint Jones before he was found out and sent packing.
Complain about this comment
No way, sorry but I would love the english players to take part in the ipl. Unless you have visited the place you won't truly understand the impact that cricket has on such a vast amount of people.
If you disregard national boundaries then the inclusion of quality players, which england no doubt have, into a competition can only benefit any sport with millions and millions of followers.
Stop the snobbish and frankly outdated views and embrace the future of a great sport, a seismic shift has taken place, get used to it.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Toinette (no 57). I've re-read the article and don't disagree with the reasons given. but it's suits doing business with suits.
It may be old fashioned, but sport should be about sport. And it should be available to as wider audience as possible to encourage more to take it up. As the sport TV coverage becomes more fragmented no-one will be able to afford to watch it all. ( see last night's England match for example)
Given the number of free to air digital channels now, surely the BBC or ITV could use one of these without having to interupt their normal schedule (possibly showing less repeats perhaps)
Complain about this comment
Was I alone in being offended by the sight of Jeremy Snape, sitting on the South African balcony in dressed full Proteas regalia, during the recent series?
Complain about this comment
I couldn't agree more - the whole sorry escapade is doing nothing for cricket.
I am entirely sick of seeing Stanford's smirking face staring out of every website and newspaper as if he was the guy who invented cricket. It seems that if you have enough money, you can just name anything after yourself now. Surely the stomach-churningly named 'Stanford Superstars' are just the West Indies?
It's a sad, sad time for cricket.
Complain about this comment
137. I can't see that Vaughan would stick his oar in or undermine KP's captaincy either intentionally or otherwise. As KP said when he took the captaincy, he would consult any past captain or anyone in the game in order to learn and improve as a captain. I don't think this has changed because he has won one dead rubber and then completed a one day series win against an obviously tired and unmotivated team. Vaughan has won the Ashes as captain and I'm sure KP will be eager to learn as much as he can from Vaughan before next summer. This will be the case whether Vaughan is in the squad or not.
Complain about this comment
I disagree about Vaughan. I accept that from 2002 until the very test in which he was made captain Vaughan was the best batsman in the world. At the time the question was continually asked as to whether he was a good batsman enjoying a purple patch (a la Broad in Australia 1986/7), or a genuinely great batsman. Opinion in the dailies inclined to the latter but history (that is to say, hindsight) suggests otherwise. No matter, Vaughan had a good career as a batsman and a great one as captain, his greatest legacy of course being the replacement of Ashes '81 as The Series.
I am not convinced, however, that any of that justifies Vaughan 2008 being given a central contract ahead of a younger player (namely someone whose knees are in better shape than those of a bedridden 90 year old with arthritis). His dismissals by the South African fast bowlers suggested an inability to get forward and low quick enough to defend the fastest yorkers. And his form for as long as anyone can remember seems to have consisted of the occasional place-saving hundred, sometimes - as with Lord's this year - at the expense of the interests of the team (on that occasion, the requirement was for quick runs to put NZ under pressure, not a Boycottesque ton to save his own place).
I could of course be proven wrong. But the way to prove me wrong would have been to tell Vaughan to go back to the counties and score lots of runs. So far he's only done half of that. His inclusion, therefore, seems to be one or more of the following: (i) a reward for long service, akin to the ludicrously antiquated benefit season; (ii) victory of hope over expectation; (iii) reward for being KP's mate; or more kindly (iv) to have him on hand to assist KP with his undoubted technical expertise as captain - the glaring omission on KP's captaincy CV (fair enough given KP had never been captain at county level or anything much at all before getting the job).
http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com
Complain about this comment
Until Stanford emerged, I admit to possessing a prejudice regarding Texans in that I assumed they were money-grabbing, arrogant, loudmouths bereft of ethics.
Complain about this comment
When I read the comments here, I am ashamed to be British.
I thought all that "taste", "glorious" vs. "shameless" stuff was a thing of the past, but no, you talk to so-called cricket fans and it's still there, making everybody sound like pompous toffs who spent the last twenty years in the shires on golden Krappers. I include quite a few of the renouned commentators, such as CMJ ("The county game is in rude health at the moment. Eastbourne was packed. There must have been 3,000 people there") Ath"errs" ("Cricket will never succeed in China, it's only popular because of the Empire") and Ugg-errs.
For me, I can't wait for the Stanford game. I like watching sport which is dramatic, and playing for a life-changing amount of money is certainly a test of individuals' personalty and a team's skills. How you can attack people for wanting to play for large amounts of money, for people willing to put large amounts of money into the game - is completely beyond me. What's wrong with it? Half of you are probably talentless and work in banks or estate agencies and make more money than an average county player. If England lose, they will have another chance next year, as will the players who don't get a game. Surely all that's good. It's motivating for everyone in the English game, including county players. Boy do they need it.
T20 is far better than Test cricket, since you get the same experience but it's compressed so you can actually watch the thing, assuming you actually have to do a job to get by. I bet half the people here didn't watch the IPL, which was brilliant otherwise the underdogs wouldn't have walked away with it. T20's the only hope of test cricket surviving anyway, since nobody watches it, apart from in England. Must be an amazing sport to transfix just the former Empire like that.
Also if the players can make lots of money, maybe it will attract more talented people to the game, away from footie, Ozzie rules and basketball. No wonder so many cricketers suffer from depression. Getting paid not much to display the talents you spent a lifetime developing, six days a week, infront of a few hundred fogies and their dog would depress anyone.
Reform if you love the game of cricket! Build up the stadiums so ordinary people can watch! Play in the rain! Cut the number of counties! Get TV on free-to-air! Expand T20!
And please ye olde Englishe people, remember that imagination is required if this sport is to survive and prosper and not to become the plaything of the Modis and Stanfords you so fear. If everything's "Just not done", you'll never do anything.
Complain about this comment
Having just read the Telegraph piece, the question is how much will Stanford be required to pay for naming rights. "Market rates" will be highly debatable as UK enters recession. My hunch is that Clark's messed up in order to placate the unviable smaller counties - and a truly massive opportunity (Bradshaw's plan) to develop the game in England's been lost. If so, Clark should resign.
But I wonder why they couldn't change the statutes of the ECB to allow selling naming rights for the counties in the EPL? In so doing, combine some of the commercial benefits of Bradshaw's plan while maintaining the 20 counties as per Clark's.
At the same time, I preferred Bradshaw's plan which could have permitted investment in the county grounds to build up capacities and generate atmosphere, essential for spectators and TV viewers, and the mid-term future of the game.
Complain about this comment
The Stanford series is an outrageous proposition. The gentlemen and players system will be seriously under threat, and no doubt whites will be replaced by vulgar coloured clothing. At least the Empire is still going strong!
Complain about this comment
Vulgar, Tasteless, but very necessary. With the game now awash with surpluses of cash, football clubs being bought by Millionaires, Cricket is trying to keep up whether we as purists of the game like it or not.
The fact that the ECB is trying to replicate the success of the IPL is in my opinion testimony that the guardians of the sport in the UK missed a trick a few years ago and they failed both on and off the pitch in grasping the UK's mood for successful cricket sides. The ECB are no playing catch up... and they aint done it too well so far.
Complain about this comment
ON MV... Only bring him back into the side if he can replicate Ramps form for the last few years. His new gleaming contract is a slap in the face of those who have been working hard for a place in the national side. Its another case of failure being rewarded. England must move on and not have the shadow of a former captain in the side.
Complain about this comment
I stopped at blog 24 or 25 as clearly this is a topic that people feel strongly about. My own concern is the de-emphasisation of the long form of the game everywhere from the doomsters who say county cricket in its current long form is unsustainable -- and then ask for readers' views -- clearly articles such as that are simply scurrilous attempts to drum up interest in the media source that promoted it -- OK in this case it was the BBC -- to the introduction of this mid-season break this year. Who's idea was that for goodness sake? How can you have continuity with dumping a whole bunch of limited overs games in the middle?
Read the blogs about Man City and football money too for an extension of this. It seems to me that the supposed "organisers" of whatever game it is puts cash before the sport and those that play it. I don't feel angry at the players at all. What they have is what they have. They just have to make the best of what they have been dealt.
Final rant is with the BBC. 400 pages of football, 3 of cricket. It takes real work to find anything on domestic cricket. All the leader articles are to do with everything else. Little wonder the wider public is less concerned -- that should be aware -- of the domestic cricket scene.
Complain about this comment
#145 writes a 462-word rant accusing us all of being talentless bankers...
...and *then* an hour later finally gets around to reading the source article that started the blog off! T20 fanatics, eh? I dunno. If it takes any amount of time, forget it. Still, it was good for a giggle on a wet Friday and I recommend it to all.
Complain about this comment
"Devisive and tasteless". Well done Aggers. What a brilliant descrption of 20/20 cricket.
However there is a light at the end of the tunnel in that after limitted overs cricket began with 60 overs aside it has since been reduced to 50, 40, and now 20. Given that sequance can we hope that one day this garbage called 20/20 will become 1/1 and over painlessly and quickly. Preferably before a full house on the morning of a test match.
Complain about this comment
Yes, # 151. I got a similar sensation from reading pierrelebruns piece (#145).
He starts off saying he is "ashamed to be British". By the end, I think he should he have added "and that I don't like cricket".
Complain about this comment
Apologies if this thought has been muted before regarding the absence of people like Denley, Napier etc from the Stanford match. For the future games, November 2009 etc I think a team should be selected from the best performers from our T20 competition which obviously would leave out much of the England squad but would be a lot fairer (it‘s an unofficial England eleven after all that plays this first game), everyone would get a chance of earning some serious money (aside from the England players who already earn tidy sums) even if their county had underperformed.
Complain about this comment
To Simonsviews, #154, there is no need for ápologies. The good thing about these blogs is that everyone can have their say and it will, almost immediately, be published. Very few contributions are removed after reactive moderation. Thise that are must be pretty scurrilous, offensive, or whatever.
I think this question has been exhaustively covered and I don't expect anyone to add another contribution.
Complain about this comment
Mr Agnew, like everthing else in life, cricket is being subordinated to the laws of capitalism and the rule of big business, much as your recent guest on TMS, David Cameron, would probably wish. As for tasteless selection, how about your selection, also for interview on TMS, of an ageing rock star, recently accused of racism against the very people who provided him with most of his music ?. John Arlott must be turning in his grave at the antics of the current TMS
Complain about this comment
What a thouroughly british attitude, to rail against a competitive sporting event on the basis of MONEY.... the great evil!! Jonathan, if you are going to bandy words like 'tasteless' and 'divisive' around, then you must have the decency to qualify your opinions, otherwise you will just be ranting.
I find it amusing and always revealing, that the people who have this knee jerk repugnance to all things pecuniary tend to dwell upon the subject with an almost morbid persistence. Any true American would probably say something like "Oh, get over yourselves!" Theres nothing wrong with a little prosperity, its only attitide and context that should prompt closer scrutiny.
I do hope you read this post Jonathan (although I think it is unlikely), because I am of the firm believe that this sort of stiff-shirted, class-based absolutism goes right to the very heart of all that holds us back in this country.
There....rant over.
All the best
Complain about this comment
Aggers
Terrific article with which I agree 100%. Let's list the guilty men...
(1) The ICC which has completely lost control of world cricket. The ICC leaders greedily pursued their own personal ambitions and failed to even notice, lket alone take charge of, the burgeoning of Twenty20 and the rampant commercialism it brings.
(2) The ECB, and especially the ineffable Giles Clarke. Not content with renewing the Sky deal which means that millions will not be able to see live international cricket he got lured by the Test cricket hating Yank Stanford into this mucky charade. In doing so he put two fingers up to established practice in the scheduling and ownership of International matches; the status quo of decent returns for effort for England's contracted players ...etc.
(3) Some old cricketers who ought to know better who sold themsleves for a mess of potage to support this abomination. Botham, Richards, Sobers, Weekes, Ambrose and Hussain etc... (but all credit to Michael Holding for his principled stance).
(4) MCC for hosting the launch vulgarity.
Complain about this comment
The most tasteless and unacceptable thing of all is the disgraceful selection of Harmison.The pampering of this overated,bloated ego is utterly deplorable.His childish and petulant comments earlier this season should have marked the end to his international career,and rightly so.Why are the selectors treating this guy as some kind of superstar?Compared to the graets of the past,Harmison is an also-ran.Our bowling attack all Summer has been admirable without him.His selection and particularly his recall to the one day squad reeks of weakness and downright stupidity.
Complain about this comment
Woodhorn
Were you frightened by a Steve Harmison lookalike in your pram ? You seem to have a peculiar and rather obsessive antipathy to him in your posts !
Perhaps you weren't at the matches in which he played after his recall. I was. He looked very good indeed.
An in form, fit Steve Harmison is an asset to any cricket team. He's fit. He's in form. He should play.
Complain about this comment
CENSURA .You obviously haven't watched Harmison's international performances over the past two years.He has been abysmal.He is not an asset to any cricket team and should concentrate on sitting in the stands at St James' Park.He's much more use there.
Complain about this comment
Does a substitute fielder get a share of the winning prize money if he takes a catch or runs someone out?
If I were in charge of selection, I would announce that the prize money will go into a central pool and shared equally between the whole squad.
No animosity then anongst those who do not make the final 11.
Those who don't agree need not be in the squad, never mind the 11.
Complain about this comment
Woodhorn.
HARMISON:
Four things matter in selection. Class. Form. Fitness and Effort.
Class
Undoubted. You don't get to be top of the ICC rankings without it.
Form
Like any player Harmy loses it from time to time. He was poor in the First away NZ Test and rightly dropped. When picked again, having proved his form, he was terrific.
Fitness
Harmy needed to bowl. He got in the groove back with his County and looked in fighting fit form when recalled by England.
Effort
Harmy is an enigma sometimes and he did lack effort form time to time in the past. But with KP as Captain, Freddie alongside him and with him hungry again there's currently no issue here either.
What was your problem again….?
Complain about this comment
With international cricket in abeyance for the time being, many of of us are scratching around to find a blog where we can post our opinions.
A few weeks ago, I read a really excellent article by Justin Langer in his occasional column for the BBC. It was about Mark Ramprakash, one of the great "might-have-beens" of English test cricket.
It is a very perceptive article, objective but also very enthusiastic about an extraordinary cricketer who, for some reason, never quite made it at the top level.
If any of you are still reading this blog, I reccommend you read it...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/7566488.stm
Complain about this comment
Replying to one of the question on why ECB will not allow its player to play in IPL.
I think with the amount of money in IPL( we have seen this from the auction during the first year itself)
Many cricket board may fear that their players will start concentrating more in the IPL or may be ICL ( if does not get selected in IPL).
Complain about this comment
PHIL MUSTARD?!!
Where is he?!
Idiotic selectors, thats what they are!
Complain about this comment
most of those so called professional football players make far more money than this in a few weeks if not days.I fail to understand what all the fuss is all about when some talented cricket players get an oppertunity to earn....for a change, some decent wage in a gentlemans game !! Time we made some comments about the overpaid footballers, they are just not worth it.
Complain about this comment
I am astonished by the jealousy and small minded nature of Jonathan Agnew and his friends and equally miserable colleagues who make up the written media. Like Agnew most of them are retired cricketers who either played for England when they were rubbish or were not even good enough to get a regular place in a poor era for the English game. This complete over the top criticism of a fun tournament over in the Caribbean with all the razzmatazz of Caribbean cricket is utterly unprofessional and downright boring. The game last night was great fun to watch and I am sure Saturday will be likewise. I don't see Golfers apologising for winning large amounts of money or footballers for that matter so why should our Cricketers be made to feel anything is wrong with taking part in this festival of 20:20 cricket. The economic situation at home has nothing to do with it unless you are a jealous ex cricketer wanting to complain about something you had made your mind up about before the tournament started. Get over the fact that you missed Packer's thousands and that you would never have been good enough to pick up Stanford’s millions.
Good for ECB and good for Stanford hopefully cricket will now be seen as more than just a hobby and the top athletes will now be attracted to the game. If they also manage to attract some decent journalists that would be a plus as well.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS