• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

You couldn't make this up

G.I.Joe

International Coach
From cricinfo:

Giles Clarke, the ECB chairman, has been subjected to further embarrassment after an email intended for him from Nigel Hilliard, the Essex chairman, was instead sent straight to the inbox of his most outspoken opponent, Leicestershire's Neil Davidson. The subject of the email? Advice on how to deal with Davidson's threat of legal action after Clarke's particularly forthright opinions in the media.

Speaking to the The Independent, Clarke variously described Davidson and his fellow critic, Rod Bransgrove of Hampshire, as “two men with a megaphone”, “flawed individuals” and “useless people who couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery.”

Davidson, in an email response that has been circulated around the counties, wrote: “The statements which you have made about me are offensive and totally without foundation. I am considering the best way to proceed given that what you said about me is clearly actionable and totally unbecoming of the chairman of the ECB.”

The situation was then compounded when Clarke, seeking advice on how to proceed, contacted Hilliard, who inadvertently sent his reply straight to Davidson.

Hilliard wrote: “Suggest you reply that you will bring the matter to the next ECB Board meeting. We might then slap your wrist and tell you carry on the good work. At the same time we might also suggest Davidson and Bransgrove keep quiet and let the chairman, who has just been elected by a landslide, get on with the job.”

Speaking to Cricinfo, Davidson confirmed the farcical chain of events. “I can certainly confirm that Hilliard sent an email to me that he thought he’d sent to Clarke,” he said. “I actually get on pretty well with Nigel, and he rang me to say: ‘Err, you shouldn’t have seen that.’”

“Nevertheless, the email is indicative of the closed-shop mentality that is surrounding Giles and keeping him in power,” said Davidson. “Looking at the polls run in the national newspapers at the height of the Stanford debacle, 85% said that Giles should go. It is very straightforward, the majority of county chairmen are not in touch with public opinion, and as the custodians of the national game, I think that is unsustainable.”

On the original content of Clarke’s interview, Davidson said: “I am advised that his comments are actionable, although I’m not sure that’s a course of action I want to take. But it also depends on Giles Clarke’s reaction. I didn’t put my email to Clarke in the public domain, I don’t know who has. I was dealing with this behind closed doors.”


What a farce. :laugh:
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
This isnt a big deal but is pretty unprofessional. Id see it as kind of typical and symptomatic rather than terrible.
 

Indipper

State Regular
England's national selector, Geoff Miller, has admitted that he is considering blocking Australians from playing in county cricket ahead of future Ashes contests, following Kent's signing of Stuart Clark.
Seems a bit illegal.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
A blanket ban seems a bit much but, without wishing to seem too jingoistic, I couldn't imagine Queensland employing Jimmy Anderson for six weeks before a down under Ashes series when he hadn't had any serious cricket for a while.

Definitely prefer top test players gracing the county scene as actual overseas players than Jacques Van Kolpak flying a flag of convenience tho.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
A blanket ban seems a bit much but, without wishing to seem too jingoistic, I couldn't imagine Queensland employing Jimmy Anderson for six weeks before a down under Ashes series when he hadn't had any serious cricket for a while.
Nah, but we were quite happy to ask NZ domestically to play Jimmy last time we were there.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Can you say that someone isn't allow to employ an Australian, but they are allowed to employ a New Zealander? I dunno?
As long as neither have rights as a European citizen then there should be little issue with it.

There are industry barriers all over the place applied to non-European products and services.

Simplistic explanation, but, IMO, it would be pretty easy to put in place.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Well presently you're allowed one overseas player with no legal issues - so there should be little legal ramification in altering that status quo.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
As long as neither have rights as a European citizen then there should be little issue with it.

There are industry barriers all over the place applied to non-European products and services.

Simplistic explanation, but, IMO, it would be pretty easy to put in place.
Ah, okay. I guess that makes sense.

I wonder how far they would go with it? Allow some Aussies but not others... ie. depending on how close they are to the squad? Not allow other nationalities on the years that they are touring?
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Ah, okay. I guess that makes sense.

I wonder how far they would go with it? Allow some Aussies but not others... ie. depending on how close they are to the squad? Not allow other nationalities on the years that they are touring?
Yeah, I don't like it personally. Smacks of interfering too much with the Counties and running a little scared.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not sure if I buy that this was accidental. It's easy to send emails to the wrong person, yes, but geez........

A blanket ban seems a bit much but, without wishing to seem too jingoistic, I couldn't imagine Queensland employing Jimmy Anderson for six weeks before a down under Ashes series when he hadn't had any serious cricket for a while.
History suggests there have been plenty of overseas players (without it being part of a culture) plying their trade in Australia. The 'problem' from the player's perspective is that none of the Shield teams have an obligation to pick a bloke in their first XI, the expectation would be that any player play for a grade side and fight their way up like everyone else (yes, even Andy Flower had to). That there is the biggest impediment to foreign players, not any nationalistic intentions I reckon.

I personally don't see any problem with letting players about to play a Test series play for local FC sides. England are more progressive on this front than Aus.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
History suggests there have been plenty of overseas players (without it being part of a culture) plying their trade in Australia. The 'problem' from the player's perspective is that none of the Shield teams have an obligation to pick a bloke in their first XI, the expectation would be that any player play for a grade side and fight their way up like everyone else (yes, even Andy Flower had to). That there is the biggest impediment to foreign players, not any nationalistic intentions I reckon.

I personally don't see any problem with letting players about to play a Test series play for local FC sides. England are more progressive on this front than Aus.
Maybe, but it's still pretty rare to see any non-Oz qualified player turning out for a state side. In fact I'd guess the only "overseas" players in the Australian FC game currently are guys like Pattinson & Nannes, who're Australian as vegemite, but who take advantage of EU passports to play here as "locals".

Here it's remarked upon when a county doesn't have an overseas player, never mind the Kolpaks and EU-passported brigade.

Mike Selvey's take on it in The Guardian is interesting. He's not given to knee-jerk reactions, but does say,

Kent have opened themselves up to derision. As an exercise in self-interest over the greater good it simply defies belief

suggesting feelings run quite deep on the subject. Personally, given a lot of the counties rely on the ECB for the majority of their funding, I'd have no problems with them being made to tow the line or risk the loss of this revenue.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Maybe, but it's still pretty rare to see any non-Oz qualified player turning out for a state side. In fact I'd guess the only "overseas" players in the Australian FC game currently are guys like Pattinson & Nannes, who're Australian as vegemite, but who take advantage of EU passports to play here as "locals".

Here it's remarked upon when a county doesn't have an overseas player, never mind the Kolpaks and EU-passported brigade.

Mike Selvey's take on it in The Guardian is interesting. He's not given to knee-jerk reactions, but does say,

Kent have opened themselves up to derision. As an exercise in self-interest over the greater good it simply defies belief

suggesting feelings run quite deep on the subject. Personally, given a lot of the counties rely on the ECB for the majority of their funding, I'd have no problems with them being made to tow the line or risk the loss of this revenue.
It's rare, yes, but only because teams here don't guarantee foreign players a first XI spot, not because they're afraid Jimmy Anderson will spend a few weeks playing Shield cricket then bowl the house down in the following series. Aus is just bigger on giving local talent a shot, sacrificing short-term success for long-term re-building (QLD this season, for example). Because it's not a club system, the team's financials don't live and die by the trophy success in a season so they can get away with that. I can totally understand Kent's decision.

I reckon that article blows it up a bit too. Claiming Stuart Clark as the central plank of the attack is ridiculous considering, after bowling well against England, he didn't exactly tear it up for both home and away series against India/SL (was reasonable away against the WI but was dropped in India) and I doubt he was injured the whole time. The entire South African batting line-up would be telling the English side they'd best be more wary of the guys currently in the side than Lee and Clark right now. If England get hammered then try to blame the fact that Hughes and Clark got some match practice in before the series, that's just denial. Geoff Miller has just given the English team a ready-made excuse for failure.

I find it more than a little pathetic, particularly since some of the 2005 Aussie XI (Katich, Warne) and many of the Aussie squad (Hodge, M Hussey, etc.) and a bunch of other Aussie fringe players were playing CC cricket in the lead-up to that series, just like every Ashes year before that for as long as I can remember. Yet not a peep at the time. Why? Because they knew they were a chance to win. This time, they think they're going to lose so some excuses will need to be latched onto. Why not blame what has been the case before every home Ashes series for decades? It's an old chestnut and it's bollocks.

It's especially egregious considering Hughes and words from English papers about his technique. First they claim he's rubbish because he steps away and probably doesn't have the technique to succeed in English conditions then suddenly, because he's going to get some match practice, he's a threat? It's nothing but politics. If England were good enough, seriously, one bowler coming back from a serious injury who hasn't played competitive cricket in months and a Test cricket n00b, no matter how good, wouldn't matter that much. Conversely, if England win, it won't be just because they were able to minimise the threat from those two (assuming Clark even gets a game!).

EDIT: Not railing at you, just the reasoning behind the snipes from the English team heirarchy. If the ECB decided to prevent teams from playing FC cricket prior to a Test series, then fair play to them. It's their call. It won't win them the series, though, which is more my point. The big danger men from England's perspective are the guys who didn't do so well last time and will be primed to dominate this time (Kat, Clarke, Ponting). Matter of fact, not one of the blokes England should be worried about are playing English FC cricket in the lead-up.
 
Last edited:

Top