Could retainerships in Twenty20 leagues prevent premature retirements?

A couple of weeks ago, Andrew Flintoff announced his retirement from test cricket. He was followed by Chaminda Vaas. These retirements come as no surprise considering the physical strain associated with being quick/fast-medium bowlers. If Flintoff plays the remaining 3 Ashes tests, he would end up with 80 tests. The sad part is that he missed a whopping 63 tests. At 143 tests, he'd have been in the top 5 most-capped test cricketers of all time (behind Steve Waugh, Tendulkar, Border & Warne).

Last year, Scott Styris retired from tests. Earlier this year, Jacob Oram threatened to follow his teammate.

The irony is that the same cricketers who extoll the virtues of test cricket, call it the ultimate form of the game, rate their test cricket achievements as being the pinnacle compared to those in other forms of the game, etc. invariably end up retiring from test cricket. Can you point out anyone who has quit ODIs to continue playing tests? So do we all get this lip-service?

Cricket boards really run the risk of many more quality players quitting test cricket. Is it possible for everyone to have the cake and eat it to? Can T20 leagues & international cricket co-exist without antagonizing everyone involved? Is it necessarily a zero-sum game?

Let's make a few assumptions here - some could be wrong of course!

• Cricket administrators (cricket boards & organizers of T20 leagues) are telling the truth when they say test cricket needs to thrive.
  
• Cricket boards want to exercise maximum control over their players.
  
• Players believe that test cricket is the supreme form of the game.
  
• Players want to maximize their earning potential while they're still able to exhibit their skills well.
  
• Sponsors want the best players to be part of the event (not necessarily play) so that they can be used as great marketing vehicles.
  
• Cricket boards don't get anything from the IPL (or indeed any of the other proposed T20 leagues) when their contracted players participate in the tournament. So, a cricket board's first reaction to such a tournament is either that they won't allow their contracted players, or the players can participate for a ridiculously short period of time.
  
• The player's concerns are to not get injured, to play quality cricket, to earn as much as they can and to be able to fulfill their national commitments & contractual obligations with their cricket board.
  
• The T20 tournament organizer's primary concern is that the best players should be available for the maximum possible period of time, and play well enough in order to make the tournament a great success.
  
• Players are paid only on the basis of the number of games they play in T20 leagues.
  
• The money that cricketers earn from the IPL (or other leagues) is far in excess of what they have been earning so far.

Given all these assumptions, how do we best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? The combination of the last two factors hugely influences a player's decision to quit playing test cricket and free up that time to play more and more Twenty20, including at events like the IPL, Champions League, etc. Adam Gilchrist was largely spot-on in the talk he gave as part of the 2009 Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket Lecture (transcript & video) when he said:

An acceptance that professional players will increasingly make pragmatic decisions about their careers, which may involve playing less Test cricket or even perhaps, none at all. That the arrival of rich, franchised based competitions like the IPL will hasten this trend and reduce the primacy of playing for your country or provincial team. That a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. That Cricket Administrators must adapt to these realities with clever programming of international fixtures to dove-tail off these competitions and if necessary radically change, even jettison the Future Tours Program in order to achieve this.

Let's leave aside for a moment the reality that Gilchrist contradicted himself in that statement. If the FTP was jettisoned, this would directly result in the likes of Bangladesh, West Indies & Zimbabwe playing less cricket against the 'stronger' (cricketing & economic factors) teams like Australia, South Africa, India & England. That would imply a reduction in the quality of cricket they're exposed to as well as revenue for boards. Do you seriously expect a cricketer from West Indies to say "No thanks, I'd rather play a test against Bangladesh because I'm so much in love with my administration"? Of course not! He's going to take the first opportunity available to throw away the WICB contract and play in one of the T20 leagues. So actually, by jettisoning the FTP, you could be increasing the risk that "a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia". Having digressed, we now go back to the question - how to best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? Would a retainership-based payment structure work? What if the IPL (or other T20 leagues) split up the player's payment on a 60-40 basis, whereby 60% of the money they get is based on the number of games they play? But the remaining 40% is actually given to their cricket board. The cricket board could reduce the payment made to the player if he skips commitments (training, other contractual obligations, international games, etc.) because he gave a higher preference to playing in the T20 tournament. That 60-40 split is just a number. It could have been 50-50 or even 70-30, but the split-up needs to provide sufficient incentives & disincentives. Players who are not contracted to their boards would receive a pro-rata amount based on the number of games they played along with other contractual obligations fulfilled. This gives cricket boards enough incentive to release players for the tournament, knowing fully well that they will get something out of it if the players don't honour their side of the bargain. Players have an incentive to balance playing T20 leagues and international cricket. They don't fall under the 'daily wage worker' category, because really speaking when you're paid on a pro-rata basis, that is what you are! The tournament organizers & sponsors benefit since they know that cricket boards and players are both committed to the event because they both stand to gain. What are the potential problems associated with such a model? Manipulative boards (and there're plenty in that category) could reduce the payments on the basis of flimsy arguments. Players could opt out of board contracts, thereby removing the boards from the equation altogether and destabilizing international cricket. Tournament organizers & sponsors could offer incentives for players to give up their existing board contracts.

It may still be an option worth considering. If the model can prevent even one star player from quitting test cricket, I'd reckon it has done its job.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, burnout, champions league, colin cowdrey lecture, fatigue, flintoff, future tours programme, gilchrist, indian premier league, lord's, mcc, retire, spirit of cricket, twenty20, vaas

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:35 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The 2007 Colin Cowdrey lecture

The 2007 MCC Colin Cowdrey lecture was delivered by Christopher Martin-Jenkins, the Chief Cricket Correspondent of 'The Times'. Incidentally, his (CMJ's, not Cowdrey's!) son, Robin Martin-Jenkins, thwarted the Indians twice during the tour game against Sussex.

His talk (text & audio) focussed on players 'walking' when they know they're out, speeding up over rates, 4-day tests (in contrast, last year, Inzy was talking about six day tests!), an innovative bidding option at the toss, having just 3 umpires around, a shorter 2011 World Cup, the BCCI's 'administration', the ICC's stand on Zimbabwe and the recent influx of non-England born players into the England team.

Broadly, there's not much I disagree with. I totally agree that teams need to bowl their overs much faster than they are right now. Monetary fines are not the solution. Docking runs, not allowing teams to complete their innings, giving runs to the opposition or forcing the team bowling slowly to take 11 or 12 wickets rather than 10, etc. seem the right way to go.

I'm not a huge fan of walking. While my argument isn't based on the fact that decisions even out (they don't!), I believe that batsmen have a right to wait for the umpire to make a decision. The other problem I have with 'walking' is that there's a huge potential for players to walk when it is convenient. In my opinion, Gilchrist abuses the 'karma' he has earned.

I don't think 4-day tests are a solution. That could be a reality when teams bowl 20 overs per hour, but I don't see that happening soon.

I totally agree that the BCCI's lack of transparency, over-commercialized mentality, etc. are pathetic, but that seems to be a recurring theme across all cricket boards. Why else would everyone agree to play Australia/India/Pakistan in venues spread all over the world?

The fact that Zimbabwe are now out of the ICC test rankings means that the administration has failed the players. Yet, they're not held accountable - at least not yet.

Past Colin Cowdrey lectures were delivered by Richie Benaud, Barry Richards, Sunil Gavaskar, Clive Lloyd, Geoff Boycott and Martin Crowe.

Labels: 2011, bcci, colin cowdrey lecture, icc, spirit of cricket, walking, world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:14 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Martin Crowe's Cowdrey lecture

Martin Crowe, the brilliant New Zealand all-time great batsman, and a personal favourite, delivered the 2006 Cowdrey 'Spirit of Cricket' lecture at Lord's.

Last year's lecture was delivered by Geoff Boycott. The 2001 lecture was delivered by Richie Benaud, the 2002 lecture was by Barry Richards, the 2003 one by Sunil Gavaskar and the 2004 lecture was delivered by Clive Lloyd.

Crowe, who has previously expressed his views on the ICC tweaking around with one-day cricket, felt that Hawkeye's role in cricket needed to be re-assessed and use it in a consistent manner, across countries. He suggested that the ICC could 'own' Hawkeye and then 'provide' it to broadcasters. Clearly he didn't read the Wisden Group's media release of a month ago when it announced that it had bought over the Hawk-Eye technology.

He then went on to ask for umpires to be helped in adjudicating no-balls by either scrapping the front-foot no-ball rule or allowing the TV umpire to call front-foot no-balls. He also called for chucking to be determined by umpires, using the naked eye, rather than using tolerance levels of 15°. He also asked for the ICC's elite panel of umpires to be expanded, chosen purely on merit, regardless of their nationality and get all the umpires (two on-field and one third umpire) to share the duties.

Interestingly enough, this is an idea I propounded on my personal blog nearly 2^1/2 years ago where I in fact suggested that all four umpires, including the reserve umpire, should share duties. I'm happy that I was two years ahead of Martin Crowe :)

Crowe also made his point on ensuring sufficient rest between tours, injuries, player burn-out and meaningless games. He asked for tours to henceforth constitute three tests, three one-dayers and three Twenty20 games. He also wanted Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to be thrown out of international cricket, which'd go a long way in reducing the amount of international cricket played.

You can listen to the lecture online.

Labels: chucking, colin cowdrey lecture, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:54 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Boycott hits out at ICC in Cowdrey lecture

Since 2001, the MCC has invited distinguished ex-cricketers to deliver the "Colin Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket" lecture as part of the MCC Spirit of Cricket initiative.

Richie Benaud, who turned 1250 years old last October, delivered the first lecture. I have not been able to locate its contents on the internet. If someone can point me to the text/summary, I will link it up, with due credit.
Barry Richards did his bit in 2002 where he focussed on how cricket needed to entertain in order to survive. I'm sure he will be very happy with the way Twenty20 is shaping up.

In 2003, Sunil Gavaskar was invited to deliver the lecture. He came down severely on sledging and poor behaviour, especially by Australia. He did start off with a couple of potshots at the Lord's security staff, who had been disallowed him, during his playing days, from entering the ground because he wasnt properly attired.

Last year, Clive Lloyd spoke about restructuring cricket and assist countries who are suffering from lack of funds, infrastructure etc. He also ventured into talking about technology for umpires, match referees etc.

Geoff Boycott spoke a couple of days ago and blasted the ICC for not recognizing that teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh were dragging down the standard of international cricket. He also dragged his mum into the picture by claiming that she'd have loved to have batted and bowled against these teams, from both ends. He wanted four day test matches with teams bowling 105 overs a day, 15 overs an hour at least. This means seven hours of play. I really wonder how you could have seven hours of play on a cold dreary English summer day. But he has a good point about day-night tests. The BCCI did try out a day-night Ranji Trophy final in 1996/97 but the players' reaction was not encouraging enough for the experiment to continue the next season.

The only positive thing he said in the lecture was about Twenty20. Come on Boycs, there're quite a few other things you can praise about the game, especially when your country's side is aiming to beat Australia and feels it has a realistic chance to do so.

Anand Vasu writes that Boycs shouldnt have bothered because Bangladesh were here to stay. It really does become more difficult to question Bangladesh's existence in international cricket after beating Australia last month.

Listen to his lecture.

Labels: colin cowdrey lecture, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:25 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Here is the full text of Clive Lloyd's Colin Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket lecture.

Labels: colin cowdrey lecture, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:00 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Clive Lloyd delivered the Colin Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket lecture at Lord's yesterday. In his speech, he talked about the need for more technology aids to help umpires. You can listen to the lecture as well as a discussion on Lloyd's address.

Labels: colin cowdrey lecture, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:49 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]