Cricket Australia (CA) made a big change this week, dropping its confusing system for contracting national players for a more baffling one.
The old system provided 25 of the best players in the country with financial assurance to enable them to focus on throwing, catching, bowling and hitting cricket balls. Seemed fairly simple, but the players selected and the contracts given were not always so simple.
The new system allows for less contracts, only 17 now, and has an even more confusing process for allocation; the vast majority of players with national contracts now are bowlers.
While this has been a positive for South Australia and Queensland, who have gained players that lost their national contracts and have gone in search of more lucrative state contracts, the way in which these contracts reconcile to selection is still a mystery.
For example, Mitchell Johnson (last seen advertising underwear, or chicken, or both), has retained his contract though hasn't played anything close to Test cricket for over 18 months.
Further, Steven Smith (who has never looked like a cricketer), lost his contract though was selected for Australia's One Day match against England last night. Making this more confusing was that he was selected seemingly as a batsman, as he wasn't called into bowl, and this was a game in which the Australian bowlers needed greater support (only taking 5 wickets).
There are many more examples of this, which has made me consider who has benefited from this system most and least. The players don't seem to have benefited, as there is now less structure and certainty, though many of the states now have due to the Diaspora. The one state that has suffered the most though, is New South Wales, with Phil Hughes and Usman Khawaja both leaving the state for better deals.
After decades of support from CA, has NSW now fallen out of favour? Is this just a means of encouraging interest in the Sheffield Shield again, or is something more personal at play?
No comments:
Post a Comment