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 ]

What motivates them to play in the IPL?

Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ganguly, Kumble and Hayden have all retired, from all international and domestic cricket, in the last 2.5 years.

Yet, they all played in the IPL, both this season and the last.

What motivates them to play in the tournament? Is it the competitive urge? Is it the curiosity to find out if they're still good enough to compete with other current players? Is it the money? Did they retire because they were tired of living out of suitcases for nearly 9 months a year? Is it the will to try and master a relatively unfamiliar form of the game? Is it to pass on their decades of cricketing wisdom on to youngsters who'd be in awe of sharing the same dressing room with them?

If it is the competitive urge, why did they retire in the first place? Were they "pushed"? So maybe its a way of cocking a snoop at the selectors or team management.

Again, if it is about wanting to find out if they're still good enough, what's the big deal? They've excelled in their field over the past 10-15 years. So it is plain and obvious that even 1-2 years after retiring, they'd be much better than the average player at the IPL, perhaps even in the 80th percentile (i.e. in the top 20% of the players at the IPL). So why even try checking?

Is it about mastering T20 and learning "new tricks"? Quite possibly so, given that between all of them, they've played 24 T20 internationals and coincidentally, only the Aussies in that list (Hayden - 13, Gilchrist - 9 and McGrath - 2) have played T20 internationals.

Of the lot, it is fair to say that Gilchrist, Hayden, Warne and Kumble (perhaps in that order) have achieved the most in this format with McGrath having a great run last year but strangely not featuring in the playing XI at all this year while Ganguly has had two horrible tournaments barring 2-3 good knocks. Hayden and Gilchrist were the top run-scorers this season while Gilchrist was at #6 last time. Warne was the 2nd highest wicket-taker last time and slipped to #10 this time. Kumble had 2 of the 4 best bowling performances this time even as he got within 2 wickets of the purple cap. McGrath was in the top 10 wicket-takers last time. Ganguly had 2 entries in the top 11 innings scores last time around.

Is it about passing on their gyaan? Again, quite possibly so. I'm sure these chaps are nice enough to try and motivate their teammates through their attitude to preparation, their winning spirit, their focus, etc. Then again, barriers are bound to crop up in a team which has players from multiple countries/cultures. So not all the youngsters would be able to/keen to absorb the gyaan.

Were they sick and tired of being part of the tours & tournaments circus for the best part of 10+ years? Quite possible, because they would have felt the need to give more time to their families and the IPL is just a month-long tournament.

Is it about the money? Most certainly so. The money is huge, and even though McGrath would have been disappointed at not featuring in the playing XI, he earned quite a lot (he was "bought" last year for USD 350,000). None of these players would actually be in a situation where they desperately need money, but hey, who's going to be stupid enough to say no?!

As a parting note, Ganesh pointed me to 53-year old Shirley-Ann Bonaparte. What prompts her to play on, 30 years after she last turned out for West Indies' women's team, now representing the USA women's team?

Labels: ganguly, gilchrist, hayden, indian premier league, ipl 2009, kumble, mcgrath, twenty20, warne

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:23 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Outside off left alone, through to Gilchrist

Adam Gilchrist's autobiography, "True Colours: My Life", is to be released next week. As is to be expected, and as we've seen with cricketer autobiographies (Trescothick, Pietersen, Wright, Fletcher, Flintoff, Hussain or Lehmann), there is a tendency to selectively leak 'scandalous' portions of the book. The aim is to create a buzz around it, with the hope that it translates into more sales when the book is released.

Adam Gilchrist's revelations about Tendulkar are nothing but just that. He has his point of view, and others have theirs. Its his autobiography, and he has a right to choose what to say, and what not to say. If he reckons that the best way to sell his book, when there's an Australia v India series on, is to say things about India's cricketers that rile their fans, then that's his judgement.

I don't believe there's any value in rebutting the allegation that Tendulkar changed his story from "I didn't hear what Harbhajan said" to "He said something that sounded like 'monkey'" during the Judge Hansen hearing. Perhaps it needs pointing out that Gilchrist wasn't directly involved at all. What he's saying is based on what he heard (or appeared to hear) Symonds, Hayden, etc. say.

He also writes that India's cricketers, and Tendulkar in particular, are hard to find after India loses a game. Does that make Tendulkar, or the rest of the Indian players, sore losers?

I don't think so. It's a cultural thing. Just because Aussies do so doesn't mean everyone else should follow. It doesn't make the Aussie refrain of "We play hard on the field, and have a beer off it" right either. It could just be the fact that whoever plays hard to get is extremely competitive.

I can vouch for it. I hated losing, especially at cricket. I've sulked so often after the team I played in (or captained) has lost, whether it was in inter-university games or intra-office cricket or inter-office cricket or league cricket. Does that make me a sore loser? I don't particularly care if it does.

In any case, if Gilchrist is taking the one example of the Sydney test to point out Tendulkar not shaking hands, there's no need to point out how acrimonious that game was. Given all that was said (or allegedly said), the spirit in which the proceedings went and the umpiring howlers, it was but natural to feel pissed off and robbed. The problem perhaps is that Gilchrist hadn't encountered defeat enough times across his career to feel that pissed off, or it wasn't in his nature to. Australia won a staggering 71% of all internationals in which Gilchrist played!

Update: Read this fantabulously hilarious riposte to Gilchrist's quotes!

Labels: australia, autobiography, gilchrist, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:59 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Deja vu for Adam Gilchrist, this time with foot in mouth

Adam Gilchrist walked in yet another World Cup semi-final, this time at the World Twenty20 championship. In a totally unexpected move on Saturday, he earned a few more brownie points and supporters when he decided to take a decision out of the umpire's hands by opting to walk after Sreesanth had demolished his stumps.

Sources close to Gilchrist confirmed that he did so to protect his reputation for walking and that he'd have done so even if Sreesanth had blown away the other two stumps as well. Gilchrist was quoted by the sources as having walked despite the distinct possibility that the Durban's windy weather had uprooted his middle-stump.

5.1 Sreesanth to Gilchrist, OUT, bowled em! Sreesanth pitches full on the stumps, Gilchrist doesnt move his feet an inch, instead choosing to fatefully play from deep in the crease, misses out on the attempted on-drive, and loses his middle stump! Big wicket for India!

After Australia had lost the game, Gilchrist stuck his foot in his mouth. When asked about Australia's performance, he said

We came from four months off. India have been playing some cricket recently.

The four month vacation didn't seem to have come into the picture when Australia demolished England or Sri Lanka. The Indian team (well most of those at this tournament) have been playing cricket continuously since June. That is not a good thing either!

Labels: deja vu, gilchrist, twenty20 world cup, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:08 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A fitting end...

Well, what can you say about the calamity, the debacle, the shamozzle that was the final of the 2007 World Cup other than, fitting.

The best team won - the most worthy challenger throughout the tournament made it to the final, Glenn McGrath goes out on a high, and the long drawn out, badly organised tournament ended in a debacle, in darkness, with wides being called, video referees making decisions, all this, after the batsmen had already left the field for bad light. This tournament will not be forgotten now and changes will be made. A thrilling cracker of a final would've pushed all the other nonsense to the background and maybe have smoothed some issues over - now, we will never forget it.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought once you went off for light of rain, you couldn't come back until the light improves or the rain stops.

If we believe the commentators, there was even talk of coming back the next day to complete the match, at one point - what a joke.

Anyway, the important points are - Sri Lanka were gallant in defeat, I guess acknowledging that they were probably not going to win anyway, but clearly could have been quite justified in being very upset at how their assault on a winning total was inhibited by lack of accurate information and organisation - and, that other point - Australia won the World Cup.

You beauty!

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, bad light, gilchrist, mcgrath, sri lanka, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Stuart Helwig @ 7:09 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Gilchrist gets away with it

Very early on in New Zealand's chase against Australia today, this happened:

2.2 Bracken to Astle, OUT, caught behind, it was bit wide outside the off stump, swings away, Astle cuts at it, gets the edge, Gilchrist takes the catch... loud appeal, Astle waits for some time, asking the umpire whether it carried. The umpire gives the nod, Astle has to go. The replays are not conclusive....

The square-leg umpire, Asad Rauf, gave a nod even though it wasn't absolutely clear first up that Gilchrist had caught it cleanly before the ball touched the ground. Was Asad Rauf influenced by the fact that Gilchrist keeps walking, even when it's bleedingly obvious that he is out, and thus plants a seed of doubt in umpires' minds that if he's been truthful earlier, he'd always be truthful? There was every case for the third umpire being asked to adjudicate on the issue, but Gilchrist's "righteousness" won the day.

Labels: Commonwealth Bank Series, gilchrist, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:58 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Centurion at Centurion

In the last year, several players played their 100th tests - Murali, Dravid, Langer, Pollock, Chanderpaul, Fleming, Kallis, etc. as far as I remember.

Mark Boucher joined the pack today, when he took the field against Pakistan at SuperSport Park, Centurion (which explains the title of this post!).

Boucher's been a bug-bear of sorts for most teams for the last half-a-decade or so now. As it is, South Africa normally have a handy lower order. Mark Boucher is the link between a fairly fragile top order and the dependable lower order. He's batted at #6 or #7 a lot of times and done a very good job. He's probably definitely South Africa's best player of spin and has been a pain in the arse far too often!

He's been a pretty safe wicket-keeper too and has kept to some fairly high-class quicks (Donald, Pollock, Nel). Boucher (380) and Gilchrist (381) will now have a running battle to go past Ian Healy's mark of 395 wicket-keeping dismissals.

Congrats, Mark!

Labels: boucher, centurion, gilchrist, healy, keeper, south africa, wicket-keeper

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:57 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]