One thing I'm amazed by is why NZC are prepared to tolerate having a test series against another country's fourth team when that's been mandated by the board concerned. That is, why they don't unilaterally call off the series on the basis that the opposition are deliberately fielding a substandard team (another angle--wouldn't that be against the ICC's anti-corruption rules?), and apply to the ICC to be granted a walkover in the WTC on that basis. Because (yet another angle) the series will still be very expensive to host, whilst probably putting NZC in breach of their contract with their broadcasters and having almost no attraction for paying punters.
I'm not so sure, though, that CSA is the only board sticking up two fingers at test cricket in order to lick the backside of franchise cricket. India pulling out of a test in England two years ago which was leaving them a very tight window to get back in time for the IPL? England resting players for a test series against NZ because they were going to be tired after the IPL? West Indies allowing players (at least unofficially) to prioritise franchise cricket over tests? And in relation to bilateral white-ball cricket it's happening almost every series these days. I'm not sure that CSA are being more cynical, they're just being blunter than all the other boards--who are essentially trying to do to two things simultaneously that are totally incompatible--about what the implications are for jumping into bed with IPL franchises twelve months a year. (One issue is that the schedule is now so crowded that there is literally nowhere to reschedule the series in the NZ home season during this WTC cycle other than during the IPL).
In that, I think we should actually thank CSA. As a sport--and, as players, seething or otherwise--we need to be clear that can't have it both ways. EITHER we value tests and other bilateral cricket (and domestic cricket as a whole) OR we allow (and put ourselves up for auction in) unrestricted franchise cricket. We can't have both, unless we're the BCCI and can carve out a de facto international window for our baby tournament whilst also enjoying a climate that allows it to be tacked onto the season rather than part of the traditional season.
(In passing, where do your figures about England match fees come from? A UK newspaper was quoting less than half that amount less than two weeks ago...)
India had the 'excuse' of Covid for not playing the fifth Test against England. And, in every other case of players missing Tests or Test series, there are 'rest and rotation' issues. The agreement with the ICC states that member nations should play their best 'available' team. If a player or players need physical or mental rest, the ICC cannot have an issue with that. BUT CSA has made over 60 players unavailable! CSA has made them unavailable, not the players! I see a huge difference between that and other examples.
Like every other national board, NZC has contractual obligations to sponsors and broadcasters to guarantee a certain number of days of international cricket per summer. If they pulled out of the Tests against South Africa then they would be in breach of contract. And wth the greatest respect to NZ cricket fans, I don't think it'll make any difference to the gate if Shukri Conrad turned up with a squad of boy scouts. There will only be a couple of thousand fans and they will be there to watch Kane Williamson.
I think I see the distinction you're making, but I still don't see a fundamental difference. That's because the basic premise in all of the cases in the same one: that you start by prioritising T20 franchises, especially ones run by IPL team owners, and every other form of the game comes a distant second--whether that's by resting players who only need rest becuse they're playing so much in franchise tournaments or withdrawing your players from test series to play in your own franchise tournament.
This is going to be very intrusting come February...
Will we play an u19 side with Elgar, P Malan, Petersen, Hamza, Bedingham, Qeshile, Pattinson and then the rest are u19 stars? Seems like the top 10 bowlers are all contracted....
Hi Yashaar, it is going to be very interesting indeed. You mention some good names, there. If only Pieter Malan had scored some runs in county cricket. But he seems bereft of form. The contracted players are still desperately hoping that the tour can be rescheduled. It's just so hard to see how and where it can be fitted in!
One thing I'm amazed by is why NZC are prepared to tolerate having a test series against another country's fourth team when that's been mandated by the board concerned. That is, why they don't unilaterally call off the series on the basis that the opposition are deliberately fielding a substandard team (another angle--wouldn't that be against the ICC's anti-corruption rules?), and apply to the ICC to be granted a walkover in the WTC on that basis. Because (yet another angle) the series will still be very expensive to host, whilst probably putting NZC in breach of their contract with their broadcasters and having almost no attraction for paying punters.
I'm not so sure, though, that CSA is the only board sticking up two fingers at test cricket in order to lick the backside of franchise cricket. India pulling out of a test in England two years ago which was leaving them a very tight window to get back in time for the IPL? England resting players for a test series against NZ because they were going to be tired after the IPL? West Indies allowing players (at least unofficially) to prioritise franchise cricket over tests? And in relation to bilateral white-ball cricket it's happening almost every series these days. I'm not sure that CSA are being more cynical, they're just being blunter than all the other boards--who are essentially trying to do to two things simultaneously that are totally incompatible--about what the implications are for jumping into bed with IPL franchises twelve months a year. (One issue is that the schedule is now so crowded that there is literally nowhere to reschedule the series in the NZ home season during this WTC cycle other than during the IPL).
In that, I think we should actually thank CSA. As a sport--and, as players, seething or otherwise--we need to be clear that can't have it both ways. EITHER we value tests and other bilateral cricket (and domestic cricket as a whole) OR we allow (and put ourselves up for auction in) unrestricted franchise cricket. We can't have both, unless we're the BCCI and can carve out a de facto international window for our baby tournament whilst also enjoying a climate that allows it to be tacked onto the season rather than part of the traditional season.
(In passing, where do your figures about England match fees come from? A UK newspaper was quoting less than half that amount less than two weeks ago...)
Hi Dave,
India had the 'excuse' of Covid for not playing the fifth Test against England. And, in every other case of players missing Tests or Test series, there are 'rest and rotation' issues. The agreement with the ICC states that member nations should play their best 'available' team. If a player or players need physical or mental rest, the ICC cannot have an issue with that. BUT CSA has made over 60 players unavailable! CSA has made them unavailable, not the players! I see a huge difference between that and other examples.
Like every other national board, NZC has contractual obligations to sponsors and broadcasters to guarantee a certain number of days of international cricket per summer. If they pulled out of the Tests against South Africa then they would be in breach of contract. And wth the greatest respect to NZ cricket fans, I don't think it'll make any difference to the gate if Shukri Conrad turned up with a squad of boy scouts. There will only be a couple of thousand fans and they will be there to watch Kane Williamson.
I think I see the distinction you're making, but I still don't see a fundamental difference. That's because the basic premise in all of the cases in the same one: that you start by prioritising T20 franchises, especially ones run by IPL team owners, and every other form of the game comes a distant second--whether that's by resting players who only need rest becuse they're playing so much in franchise tournaments or withdrawing your players from test series to play in your own franchise tournament.
Sinking ship indeed, a good analogy
This is going to be very intrusting come February...
Will we play an u19 side with Elgar, P Malan, Petersen, Hamza, Bedingham, Qeshile, Pattinson and then the rest are u19 stars? Seems like the top 10 bowlers are all contracted....
Hi Yashaar, it is going to be very interesting indeed. You mention some good names, there. If only Pieter Malan had scored some runs in county cricket. But he seems bereft of form. The contracted players are still desperately hoping that the tour can be rescheduled. It's just so hard to see how and where it can be fitted in!