Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 121

Thread: Cricket Australia Contracts

  1. #31
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,127
    Quote Originally Posted by biased indian View Post
    they all get same amount ??? or if there is classification any one know who is in which ???
    What Gelman said, and of course Ricky Ponting is the highest paid of the lot. Out of interest contract their players, what is the lowest paid player to the highest paid player (I guess it has to be Dhoni since he is captain) outside of all their sponsorship deals etc.?
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  2. #32
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    13,755
    Lowest on about $200 000.

    Highest on about $750 000.

    Then there's match payments and tour fees on top of that.

    Then there's personal sponsorships of course.

  3. #33
    Hall of Fame Member chaminda_00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Murali CG
    Posts
    16,305
    Mixed messages for mine there. If Hodge gets a contract as the next in line for Tests, which is fair enough. Then wouldn't Jaques get on for being next in line in Tests as opener. If your picking a reserve specialist keeper for the sake of picking a reserve specialist keeper, then wouldn't you select a reserve opener. Unless of course they think Marsh, Mussey, Watson or Hodge are ahead as ahead as the reserve opener.

    White selection an interesting one considering he missed the UAE ODIs and Twenty20 WC. Does that mean he is still seen as potential Test spinner. Or is he higher then the Test ranking then we think as batsmen. If he is one of the next in line in all three formats as a batsmen then fair enough.

    No Tait. He had injuries for a long time, but so has Watson and he still got a contract. Have they given up on him, or have others jumped ahead on the Test ranking and not far off in limited overs. Still would be the 2nd bowler I would select in Twenty20 after Lee.
    The man, the mountain, the Mathews. The greatest all rounder since Keith Miller. (Y)

    Jaffna Jets CC (Battrick & FTP)

    RIP WCC and CW Cricket

    Member of the MSC, JMAS and CVAAS

  4. #34
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    18,639
    Quote Originally Posted by chaminda_00 View Post
    No Tait. He had injuries for a long time, but so has Watson and he still got a contract. Have they given up on him, or have others jumped ahead on the Test ranking and not far off in limited overs. Still would be the 2nd bowler I would select in Twenty20 after Lee.
    20/20's the only thing I'd select Tait in though, he's never been consistent in tests and I'd go for Siddle, Clark, Johnson, Lee, Bracken, Watson, and Bollinger before him in tests and one-dayers (although if he was fit, and the deck was quick, I'd think about trying to squeeze him into a one-dayer here or there). I think it's time people gave up on Tait for tests. The wow factor of the first couple of overs of quick erratic bowling gives way to the frustration of him spraying it around and getting belted pretty quickly for mine.

    Similar reason why Warner wasn't anywhere near a contract. On the ABC news channel here the sports guy said he missed out as if it was controversial...of course he missed out.

    Mind you, the argument can be made that there are some strange selections in there for contracts anyway.
    R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best

    R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi

    Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath

    "How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.

    "There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball

    "**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball


  5. #35
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Son Of Coco View Post
    20/20's the only thing I'd select Tait in though, he's never been consistent in tests and I'd go for Siddle, Clark, Johnson, Lee, Bracken, Watson, and Bollinger before him in tests and one-dayers (although if he was fit, and the deck was quick, I'd think about trying to squeeze him into a one-dayer here or there). I think it's time people gave up on Tait for tests. The wow factor of the first couple of overs of quick erratic bowling gives way to the frustration of him spraying it around and getting belted pretty quickly for mine.

    Similar reason why Warner wasn't anywhere near a contract. On the ABC news channel here the sports guy said he missed out as if it was controversial...of course he missed out.

    Mind you, the argument can be made that there are some strange selections in there for contracts anyway.
    Warner has a permanent spot in one of the teams though, some of the members in the squad don't even have that in any side.
    Rest In Peace Craigos
    2003-2012

  6. #36
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    57,860
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag View Post
    Warner has a permanent spot in one of the teams though, some of the members in the squad don't even have that in any side.
    TBH I think it's refreshing to know that players aren't going to get national contracts just for being good Twenty20 cricketers. Warner's let it be known that his goal is to make the Shield team and ultimately the Test team, but not all players are going to be like that and this has sent the message loud and clear that Australia won't be contracting guys unless they're viable Test or at least ODI options.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

    Code:
    Pixie Caramels won by an Innings and 258 runs.

  7. #37
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    18,639
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag View Post
    Warner has a permanent spot in one of the teams though, some of the members in the squad don't even have that in any side.
    Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I said there were some strange selections. Personally, I'd hope permanent selection in the 20/20 team never means a contract, unless the cupboard is really bare. It would have to be an exceptional case, and I don't think Warner's that. I'd rate all the guys who got contracts above Warner at the moment, but that could change if he performs well over the next year or so.

  8. #38
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    TBH I think it's refreshing to know that players aren't going to get national contracts just for being good Twenty20 cricketers. Warner's let it be known that his goal is to make the Shield team and ultimately the Test team, but not all players are going to be like that and this has sent the message loud and clear that Australia won't be contracting guys unless they're viable Test or at least ODI options.
    Which is fine in theory, but then they give contracts to people unlikely to partake in any of the three formats in the current year. I'm all for a hierarchy and for Twenty20 to be at the bottom of it, but still a guy that's guaranteed to play 15 or so international games a year should be a ahead of a couple of people unlikely to play any, even if it is Twenty20s.

  9. #39
    International Vice-Captain Noble One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Son Of Coco View Post
    20/20's the only thing I'd select Tait in though, he's never been consistent in tests and I'd go for Siddle, Clark, Johnson, Lee, Bracken, Watson, and Bollinger before him in tests and one-dayers (although if he was fit, and the deck was quick, I'd think about trying to squeeze him into a one-dayer here or there). I think it's time people gave up on Tait for tests. The wow factor of the first couple of overs of quick erratic bowling gives way to the frustration of him spraying it around and getting belted pretty quickly for mine.
    Tait's chances of ever making it as a Test cricketer are diminishing quickly. Since his brief retirement he has never really got his body or mind back to his best. The depth in Australian bowling stocks means unless he has a big season next year I think his time has passed. I would think that even cricketers such as Harris, McKay, Magoffin and Geeves are ahead in the pecking order.

    From one of the recent interviews with Shaun Tait.

    "At the end of the day, my action has got me this far," he said. "I am prepared to cop these injuries to keep bowling fast. Last year I probably targetted the shorter forms more. I think one-dayers and Twenty20s suit my style of game more. In the next three or four months, I'll see how I go. If I'm still feeling good playing four-day cricket then I'd be stupid to walk away, but if not then I'll have to have a think about it."

    You feel he is just an injury/poor game away from calling it quits on the longer form of the game. May well be for the best, his career in Australian colours is best with the ODI and T20 squads.

  10. #40
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    57,860
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag View Post
    Which is fine in theory, but then they give contracts to people unlikely to partake in any of the three formats in the current year. I'm all for a hierarchy and for Twenty20 to be at the bottom of it, but still a guy that's guaranteed to play 15 or so international games a year should be a ahead of a couple of people unlikely to play any, even if it is Twenty20s.
    Can't really agree TBH. I'd rather have the first reserve Test batsman contracted than a Twenty20 specialist.

  11. #41
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Can't really agree TBH. I'd rather have the first reserve Test batsman contracted than a Twenty20 specialist.
    Indeed.

  12. #42
    International Captain Howsie's Avatar
    Super Mario Rampage 1 Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    6,835
    Why did Cameron White get a contract?
    Northern Districts
    Proudly supporting KS Williamson, TG Southee, TA Boult, BJ Watling, CJ Anderson, MJ Santner and IS Sodhi, TL Seifert and ZN Gibson

  13. #43
    Hall of Fame Member chaminda_00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Murali CG
    Posts
    16,305
    From what I heard from the head selector, the guy that likes hook, can't remember his name. It looks like the contracts/rankings are based on over rating in all forms. So players like Jaques, Warner and Tait who aren't really consider in all three forms would struggle to get contracts under that system. Whereas as guys like Manou, Hodge, White or Dussey who are close in all three are more likely to get contracts. Basically the best 25 cricketers overall in Australia, not the 25 most likely to play Internationals.

    Does seem a tad strange. But the way overall payments are given, it is based heavierly on match payments. So in theory if Crazy got back into the Test side and jumped ahead of Hauritz in ODIs and T20, then he could earn more from match payments/short term contract, then Hauritz from his base rate. So it all a bit superficial in the end if you don't play games anyway.

  14. #44
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    McDonald & White obvious garbage. Jaques & Tait (regardless of injury woes) are definately on of the top 25 players.

    Interesting position oh Hauritz, agree that he deserves a contract given he will be the main ODI spinner for a while yet. But given his test credentials aren't as safe i worry this means he will get selected in the Ashes squad which im 100% againts.

    Thank god, Hodge is in also...
    Last edited by aussie; 14-05-2009 at 09:41 AM.

  15. #45
    International Coach stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    aus
    Posts
    13,845
    Quote Originally Posted by chaminda_00 View Post
    From what I heard from the head selector, the guy that likes hook, can't remember his name. It looks like the contracts/rankings are based on over rating in all forms. So players like Jaques, Warner and Tait who aren't really consider in all three forms would struggle to get contracts under that system. Whereas as guys like Manou, Hodge, White or Dussey who are close in all three are more likely to get contracts. Basically the best 25 cricketers overall in Australia, not the 25 most likely to play Internationals.

    Does seem a tad strange. But the way overall payments are given, it is based heavierly on match payments. So in theory if Crazy got back into the Test side and jumped ahead of Hauritz in ODIs and T20, then he could earn more from match payments/short term contract, then Hauritz from his base rate. So it all a bit superficial in the end if you don't play games anyway.
    Even that doesn't justify Jaques being dropped.

    He has a test match average over 45 in a short number of tests.

    He has a first class average over 50 and over 11k runs to his name.

    He has a List A average of over 42 at a strike rate of 90 and over 4000 runs to his name.

    The only thing he shouldn't be in line for is T20 cricket. Heck, as soon as he's fit I'd like to see him in the ODI side ahead of Marsh and Watson (as an opener).

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The man who revolutionised cricket
    By C_C in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 16-06-2011, 12:23 AM
  2. Great Test Matches..
    By Neil Pickup in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 04-10-2010, 08:17 PM
  3. The unhealthy obsession with the Ashes
    By Fidel Castro in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 16-04-2009, 09:31 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26-09-2007, 02:44 AM
  5. *Official* Cricket World Cup in Australia, CWLand and New Zealand
    By Magrat Garlick in forum Cricket Web XI
    Replies: 520
    Last Post: 13-08-2006, 03:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •