In time, a decade at most, the majority of the world’s best cricketers will serve their Franchise teams first and foremost and will be released by them to play for their countries in certain, ICC-ratified events. Basically, World Cups and certain World Cup qualifiers. That’s the way it has been for years in football.
We are risking a major upsetting of relationships between the captain and most of his best players.......Why?.....Because CSA arranged the matches against Bangladesh during a period when they knew many of them would be contracted to go to the IPL. Why ??
Hi Keith, apologies for the delay in reply. To be fair to CSA, they are extremely limited with options for arranging bilateral series. If we want our players to be free for the IPL then we will have to make some drastic decisions, like commit to only playing two-match Test series like New Zealand Cricket have done. Unfortunately I believe we are going to have to accept that clashes like this one will be inevitable - and some players will choose IPL.
A series against Bangladesh can't be worth much, can it?
But more to the point, will it be worth the problems its going to create? There's already a rift between the players and Board, and this will only make that worse. But I think the far greater danger is that it has potential to create a rift amongst the players.
Bangladesh is in the top ten most populace countries on earth with over 150 million people, many of whom watch cricket. I'd think them TV rights would be significant and that CSA would get a meaningful chunk of that.
They have the population, but they don't have the development. They just sold their home game rights for the next 2 years (10 home series incl 1 from India) for only 20mil US. So the value of CSA selling rights back into Bangladesh for the upcoming series just can't be that much... a few mil US at most?
A bit of a late arrival at this article. I shall be brief. Rashid Khan has a lot of class. Thank you for including his comments. This is someone from a third world country, now sharing in first world riches, who hasn't forgotten where he came from and how he got to where he is today.
In an ideal world, a cricketer's ultimate dream should be to play for their country. This has for the most part benefitted sports like cricket and rugby and in my opinion hurt football as a sport. Matches between football nations are an annoyance that have a very lowly status in comparison to club games. Money talks, it will be a sad day in the future when cricket and rugby are played by businessmen and not athletes who dream of national colours.
Surely this should be seen as an opportunity to give the players waiting in the wings a chance. Most of the Kolpak players are back, we’ve expanded the domestic franchise setup. We should have other options.
Let the IPL players go off and earn a living whilst they still can. A little more compassion (maybe a lot actually) would make the world a better place
You have a point, William. It would be an easier decision to make if the Proteas were out of the running in the World Test Championship but they are well place to push for a place in the final. It is 'easier' to rotate players in T20 cricket and even ODIs, but the prestige of Test cricket has always demanded the selection of the 'best' XI. Maybe we need to review that view...
Nationally contracted players aren't paid 'poorly' by any means, but at the extreme end of the IPL the difference in earnings is as much as 20 times. So they have to make a difficult choice...
Every individual wants the best for himself. But no organisation can provided the best for all. e.g. Parents want the best for their children but the teacher with 30 or so students cannot achieve that.
In the so called democratic affluent world, there is less national allegiance than in the others, each one for themselves.
The solution is not to put an individual in a position of choice, this merely being the symptom not the cause..
How does one achieve that in the cricketing sphere?
Administrators need to acknowledging the concept of change, e.g. Packer, IPL, World championship for the 5 day version etc. And there will be more changes to come. Consequently they have negotiate with those creating the changes, who,in turn, need to respect the existing status quo, neither should dig their heels in. Overlapping schedules are very destructive, as we can see from this article.
Let us all put pressure on the entire set of administrators not the individuals.
But we all saw the writing on the wall, with Kerry Packer and his world series and what that did to the players that went rogue, they crossed over from the test barely paid arena, to the bright lights and big cheques, and well 40 yrs later, birds have come home to roost..
Players must be paid what they and the market feels they are worth, after all they only have 10 to 15 yrs of value, then maybe a bit longer floating around the 2nd tier T20 leagues, then what, coach or commentate, or maybe 1 out 10 000 turn to umpiring or match referee status...
The villain in this drama is TV, broadcasters, they are the ones that pay the king's ransom, it is not their money, it is subscriptions, and if they need more, just hike the price, or make it an add on, like Sky did to F1, you can watch everything on Premiere package, but F1 is a £15 bolt on extra [is a scam no question...]
What we must not forget there are only 52 weeks in the year, 26 of those are "out of season" due to weather, so players move so they can best earn what they can, and this causes a problem, where do you fit in 3 types of games...
No other sport has 3 formats, not rugby, not football, not netball, none has the same demand if there is an alternate format, sure 7's, but you are not likely to see the Saracen's front row playing 7's..
Cricket does not change cause it is T20 or ODI, from the traditional TEST MATCH, it is still 11 v 11, only the duration is limited, you still need batters, bowlers, all-rounders and a keeper, not like in T20 we do away with the need for a keeper, or a fast bowler, or we modify the field...It is a test match only played at X200 speed...
The machine needs feeding, it demands players, and those players burn out, become out of form, then what? Spectators demand through the subscription, p;layers are nothing more than the old seaside nag, ridden from dawn to dusk, fed/watered and expected to repeat being a nag the next day, and the next....Nags like this have rights...do the players??
Professionalism is the problem, and I highly doubt there is a solution, other than no paid sport...
Another realistic and measured analysis, Manners, kudos! Totally agree that we shouldn't hold the players to double standards. And that includes the IPL contract-less Dean Elgar!
What I haven't heard anything about it using the opportunity to blood new players.
And what about contractual obligations to the IPL teams -- what are they? Is it just a matter of the players not arriving and not being paid or are there broader implications for them WRT the franchises?
Alex, it gets complicated by the fact that national boards receive a percentage of their players' contracts when they appear in the IPL. So in the case of Kagiso Rabada and Anrich Nortje, the highest paid South Africans, the dollars they generate for CSA are significant compensation for losing them for a couple of Test matches.
Rashid has the right attitude, as you say. But as you correctly point out, in football it is the clubs that call the shots. Cricket will need 'international windows'. However unlike football cricket is a 5 day affair and even ODI series's are way longer than 90 mins.
David, there are many differences between the sports, obviously, but I think there are more similarities. More and more players will choose to become international 'freelancers' and prefer to sign Franchise contracts rather than national ones. It is an unstoppable process, in my opinion...
We are risking a major upsetting of relationships between the captain and most of his best players.......Why?.....Because CSA arranged the matches against Bangladesh during a period when they knew many of them would be contracted to go to the IPL. Why ??
Hi Keith, apologies for the delay in reply. To be fair to CSA, they are extremely limited with options for arranging bilateral series. If we want our players to be free for the IPL then we will have to make some drastic decisions, like commit to only playing two-match Test series like New Zealand Cricket have done. Unfortunately I believe we are going to have to accept that clashes like this one will be inevitable - and some players will choose IPL.
Because CSA is broke and they need all the matches they can get. They can't control all scheduling in a packed calendar with bubble time added to it.
Quite right, Alex.
A series against Bangladesh can't be worth much, can it?
But more to the point, will it be worth the problems its going to create? There's already a rift between the players and Board, and this will only make that worse. But I think the far greater danger is that it has potential to create a rift amongst the players.
Bangladesh is in the top ten most populace countries on earth with over 150 million people, many of whom watch cricket. I'd think them TV rights would be significant and that CSA would get a meaningful chunk of that.
They have the population, but they don't have the development. They just sold their home game rights for the next 2 years (10 home series incl 1 from India) for only 20mil US. So the value of CSA selling rights back into Bangladesh for the upcoming series just can't be that much... a few mil US at most?
A bit of a late arrival at this article. I shall be brief. Rashid Khan has a lot of class. Thank you for including his comments. This is someone from a third world country, now sharing in first world riches, who hasn't forgotten where he came from and how he got to where he is today.
In an ideal world, a cricketer's ultimate dream should be to play for their country. This has for the most part benefitted sports like cricket and rugby and in my opinion hurt football as a sport. Matches between football nations are an annoyance that have a very lowly status in comparison to club games. Money talks, it will be a sad day in the future when cricket and rugby are played by businessmen and not athletes who dream of national colours.
Surely this should be seen as an opportunity to give the players waiting in the wings a chance. Most of the Kolpak players are back, we’ve expanded the domestic franchise setup. We should have other options.
Let the IPL players go off and earn a living whilst they still can. A little more compassion (maybe a lot actually) would make the world a better place
You have a point, William. It would be an easier decision to make if the Proteas were out of the running in the World Test Championship but they are well place to push for a place in the final. It is 'easier' to rotate players in T20 cricket and even ODIs, but the prestige of Test cricket has always demanded the selection of the 'best' XI. Maybe we need to review that view...
Great point, Neil. Opportunities such as these aren’t to be taken lightly. I feel for everyone concerned. It’s not an easy call.
PS Of course cricketers want to play for their country and earn money
Nationally contracted players aren't paid 'poorly' by any means, but at the extreme end of the IPL the difference in earnings is as much as 20 times. So they have to make a difficult choice...
Let us address the casuals not the symptoms.
Every individual wants the best for himself. But no organisation can provided the best for all. e.g. Parents want the best for their children but the teacher with 30 or so students cannot achieve that.
In the so called democratic affluent world, there is less national allegiance than in the others, each one for themselves.
The solution is not to put an individual in a position of choice, this merely being the symptom not the cause..
How does one achieve that in the cricketing sphere?
Administrators need to acknowledging the concept of change, e.g. Packer, IPL, World championship for the 5 day version etc. And there will be more changes to come. Consequently they have negotiate with those creating the changes, who,in turn, need to respect the existing status quo, neither should dig their heels in. Overlapping schedules are very destructive, as we can see from this article.
Let us all put pressure on the entire set of administrators not the individuals.
Secondly,
But we all saw the writing on the wall, with Kerry Packer and his world series and what that did to the players that went rogue, they crossed over from the test barely paid arena, to the bright lights and big cheques, and well 40 yrs later, birds have come home to roost..
Players must be paid what they and the market feels they are worth, after all they only have 10 to 15 yrs of value, then maybe a bit longer floating around the 2nd tier T20 leagues, then what, coach or commentate, or maybe 1 out 10 000 turn to umpiring or match referee status...
The villain in this drama is TV, broadcasters, they are the ones that pay the king's ransom, it is not their money, it is subscriptions, and if they need more, just hike the price, or make it an add on, like Sky did to F1, you can watch everything on Premiere package, but F1 is a £15 bolt on extra [is a scam no question...]
What we must not forget there are only 52 weeks in the year, 26 of those are "out of season" due to weather, so players move so they can best earn what they can, and this causes a problem, where do you fit in 3 types of games...
No other sport has 3 formats, not rugby, not football, not netball, none has the same demand if there is an alternate format, sure 7's, but you are not likely to see the Saracen's front row playing 7's..
Cricket does not change cause it is T20 or ODI, from the traditional TEST MATCH, it is still 11 v 11, only the duration is limited, you still need batters, bowlers, all-rounders and a keeper, not like in T20 we do away with the need for a keeper, or a fast bowler, or we modify the field...It is a test match only played at X200 speed...
The machine needs feeding, it demands players, and those players burn out, become out of form, then what? Spectators demand through the subscription, p;layers are nothing more than the old seaside nag, ridden from dawn to dusk, fed/watered and expected to repeat being a nag the next day, and the next....Nags like this have rights...do the players??
Professionalism is the problem, and I highly doubt there is a solution, other than no paid sport...
Another realistic and measured analysis, Manners, kudos! Totally agree that we shouldn't hold the players to double standards. And that includes the IPL contract-less Dean Elgar!
What I haven't heard anything about it using the opportunity to blood new players.
And what about contractual obligations to the IPL teams -- what are they? Is it just a matter of the players not arriving and not being paid or are there broader implications for them WRT the franchises?
Alex, it gets complicated by the fact that national boards receive a percentage of their players' contracts when they appear in the IPL. So in the case of Kagiso Rabada and Anrich Nortje, the highest paid South Africans, the dollars they generate for CSA are significant compensation for losing them for a couple of Test matches.
Rashid has the right attitude, as you say. But as you correctly point out, in football it is the clubs that call the shots. Cricket will need 'international windows'. However unlike football cricket is a 5 day affair and even ODI series's are way longer than 90 mins.
David, there are many differences between the sports, obviously, but I think there are more similarities. More and more players will choose to become international 'freelancers' and prefer to sign Franchise contracts rather than national ones. It is an unstoppable process, in my opinion...
And the national boards won't easily hand the ICC the kinds of powers that FIFA now enjoys...