• 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.

New Zealand doom and gloom thread

D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
I think you're really underselling how much Joe Public hates Test cricket here. Crowd turnout at the Basin when I was over there was impressive, and its a country of 4 million people ffs.
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
Flem274* said:
BJ Watling earns what, 100-150k from NZC?

That's a pretty sweet deal, especially when you factor in match fees.

NZC is a multi-million dollar sporting body. Through the world cup, normal length odi series, tv rights to sky etc they bring in a lot of money. plus they get their poverty loans from the ICC every so often. David White and the board probably earn at least just as much if not more than BJ does.

It's not the salaries of BJ Watling that are at risk here, and definitely not those of the board. if NZC have a bad year it will be the grassroots coaching and womens cricket that get hit and the public doesn't give a **** about either as long as little johnny gets to play for his school or club every weekend.

edit *sigh* i just realised i've defended a tongue in cheek final comment from the arguments of our best friend. that's what i get for skim reading...
Click to expand...
100-150K for what Watling does as an international sportsman is peanuts and not at all a sweet deal. Do you not think money was a factor in Caddick or Stokes playing for England?

The Aussie central contract system - look at their payment range. Starts at what, 2 million AUD a year or something? Over half the team earn over a million AUD a year don't they? NZC starts at $181,000 and works down to 78,000. And where does that money come from presently? And how does NZC ensure its continual flow. Supply and demand. If the demand of Joe Public is pyjama cricket, then it must be supplied to keep Test Cricket alive and well. The money keeps the cricketers playing the game for as long as they're good enough. Australia have plenty of money in their domestic cricket competitions too. That Big Bash tournament looks after the players quite nicely. What does Watling do tomorrow if he is injured?

International T20 leagues could rob NZ of players in retirement before their time was up. Plus a lot of sporting talent is talented at more than one sport. NZC with one franchise paying six figure salaries, the national team, is odds against someone earning good money who is looking to play rugby or rugby league. Talented young sportsman would be advised by their parents to look at securing themselves financially. How much are super rugby players on? Not internationals - just a solid super rugby player.

Roger Tuivashek just signed a $850,000.00 contract to play for the Warriors, and he is not done half as much as BJ Watling so far as to earn it on my opinion.

Each to their own, but I for one, have no issue at all with the NZC board electing to switch a test for 3 ODIs if done for financial reasons or bring Joe Public interest into cricket.

Pure test cricket fans, the purists, can sit there in all their pompousness and disgust akin to English amateur county cricketers looking down on the professional players in the team and call the other formats of the game "slap and tickle" and live happily ever after not appreciating the real constraints for all I care. I for one just think its naive and ignorant and do not criticise the NZC decision.
 
Last edited:
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
100-150k looks pretty good to me tbh. really really good. if i can finance what i finance on a much smaller budget then im pretty sure watling won't starve if he gets injured tomorrow.

it's not fair that he gets paid considerably less than a spud like shane watson, but he's hardly in poverty here and the main point of my original post was this team aren't money whores, but committed to the cause. have you seen anything to suggest anything different or are you going to bold individual sentences and sidetrack me again?

ben stokes plays for england because he considers himself english. he said as much to his kiwi parents.
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
Flem274* said:
100-150k looks pretty good to me tbh. really really good. if i can finance what i finance on a much smaller budget then im pretty sure watling won't starve if he gets injured tomorrow.

it's not fair that he gets paid considerably less than a spud like shane watson, but he's hardly in poverty here and the main point of my original post was this team aren't money whores, but committed to the cause. have you seen anything to suggest anything different or are you going to bold individual sentences and sidetrack me again?

ben stokes plays for england because he considers himself english. he said as much to his kiwi parents.
Click to expand...
I'll believe Ben Stokes. And Caddick?

As for yourself comparing your financial position to BJ Watlings, that is irrelevant unless you have BJ's talent. We do not live under communism. People are entitled to maximise their earnings - that is the dangling carrot incentive point of egalitarian capitalism. If BJ Watling sees professional cricket as a means to buying a beach front house or a Ferrari, he should not be denied that right if at all possible. And even if he did, that still does not make him a money whore. I don't expect professional cricketers to earn less so as to entertain me for longer and at a higher level without me calling them a money whore. You sound ridiculous. International and professional cricket is an entertainment business. The patriotism it evolves is a collateral benefit. There is no duty to serve your country in cricket and in exchange NZC promise that you will not starve while doing so.

Shouldn't we aim for fully professional domestic cricketers and international cricketers and more of them paid well? Is that not a good thing? Shouldn't we aim to get more people in the public interested in cricket? Even if just pyjama cricket? Is that not a good thing? Aren't some fans drawn into ODI cricket likely to become interested in test cricket. If it pays more bills and means more cricket, including test cricket and maybe a rise in the standard of domestic cricket with older average player ages staying in the game longer and raising the standard of cricket, how can it not be good?

I'm not calling any professional cricketer a money whore. You keep bringing that topic up. Out of curiosity do you think Dan Carter is a money whore? I do not. Players will play for less to play for NZ longer or coach in NZ longer than they could earn overseas, but you have to make the decision easier for them. If matching is impossible, at least lessen the opportunity cost.

But if keeping the Flemmings, Vettoris and the Bonds or the players slighty below their level in the NZ game for longer, post playing as well as their playing careers can be achieved, I'm all for it. Why are we losing all our best cricketing brains to India and Australia? They're not as readily replaceable as NZRFU talent is to NZ or Aussie cricket talent is to Australia. But I would not blame an entertainer leaving Shortland St to pursue a career in Hollywood, so I do not blame NZ Cricketers for going to Bollywood.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Yes, indeed. restructured the sentence and forgot to switch underselling to overselling.
 
D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
CaptainGrumpy said:
I'll believe Ben Stokes. And Caddick?

As for yourself comparing your financial position to BJ Watlings, that is irrelevant unless you have BJ's talent. We do not live under communism. People are entitled to maximise their earnings - that is the dangling carrot incentive point of egalitarian capitalism. If BJ Watling sees professional cricket as a means to buying a beach front house or a Ferrari, he should not be denied that right if at all possible. And even if he did, that still does not make him a money whore. I don't expect professional cricketers to earn less so as to entertain me for longer and at a higher level without me calling them a money whore. You sound ridiculous. International and professional cricket is entertainment.

Shouldn't we aim for fully professional domestic cricketers and international cricketers and more of them paid well? Is that not a good thing? Shouldn't we aim to get more people in the public interested in cricket? Even if just pyjama cricket? Is that not a good thing? Aren't some fans drawn into ODI cricket likely to become interested in test cricket. If it pays more bills and means more cricket, including test cricket and maybe a rise in the standard of domestic cricket with older average player ages, how can it not be good?

I'm not calling any professional cricketer a money whore. You keep bringing that topic up. Out of curiosity do you think Dan Carter is a money whore? I do not. Players will play for less to play for NZ longer or coach in NZ longer, but you have to make the decision easier for them. if matching is impossible, at least lessen the opportunity cost.

But if keeping the Flemmings, Vettoris and the Bonds or the players slighty below their level in the NZ game for longer, post playing as well as their playing careers can be achieved, I'm all for it. Why are we losing all our best cricketing brains to India and Australia? They're not as readily replaceable as NZRFU talent is to NZ or Aussie cricket talent is to Australia. But I would not blame an entertainer leaving Shortland St to pursue a career in Hollywood, so I do not blame NZ Cricketers for going to Bollywood.
Click to expand...


The difference between $150k and $4mil, in terms of actual quality of life, is far smaller than, say, the difference between $20k and $40k. It ain't linear; once you get past a certain point the marginal utility of each additional dollar drops dramatically. For someone intent on bringing 'egalitarian capitalism' (an oxymoron if I've ever read one, ftr) into the discussion, you seem to have a thorough lack of understanding of any actual neoliberal economic concepts.

I'm pretty sure that's the thrust of Phlegm's point there -- Watling is above that threshold and, as such, has the ability to wilfully choose a Test cricket career over gearing his game towards lucrative IPL contracts without threatening his financial security. And somehow I don't think that NZ playing one more Test against Australia compared to 3 ODIs against them is going to make BJ Watling starve that week.


But anyway, none of this discussion makes any sense and nobody seems to have a coherent point, and it all seems to be based on a weird assumption that NZers hate Test cricket and won't watch it. I'm not sure that's true, especially in the context of NZ actually doing well.
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
Dan said:
The difference between $150k and $4mil, in terms of actual quality of life, is far smaller than, say, the difference between $20k and $40k. It ain't linear; once you get past a certain point the marginal utility of each additional dollar drops dramatically. For someone intent on bringing 'egalitarian capitalism' (an oxymoron if I've ever read one, ftr) into the discussion, you seem to have a thorough lack of understanding of any actual neoliberal economic concepts.

I'm pretty sure that's the thrust of Phlegm's point there -- Watling is above that threshold and, as such, has the ability to wilfully choose a Test cricket career over gearing his game towards lucrative IPL contracts without threatening his financial security. And somehow I don't think that NZ playing one more Test against Australia compared to 3 ODIs against them is going to make BJ Watling starve that week.

But anyway, none of this discussion makes any sense and nobody seems to have a coherent point, and it all seems to be based on a weird assumption that NZers hate Test cricket and won't watch it. I'm not sure that's true, especially in the context of NZ actually doing well.
Click to expand...
Who the heck do you think you are, John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman?

Unfortunately I have far too much understanding of neoliberal economic concepts, and if you actually read my post it is readily accepted that he marginal utility is diminished hence where I wrote "'Im not calling any professional cricketer a money whore. You keep bringing that topic up. Out of curiosity do you think Dan Carter is a money whore? I do not. Players will play for less to play for NZ longer or coach in NZ longer, but you have to make the decision easier for them. if matching is impossible, at least lessen the opportunity cost." I quite understand that the quality of life is not linear with salary. But it does increase with more money. So the point remains entirely intact. I notice that you have ignored Flemming, Vettori and Bond's lengthened playing and coaching careers in New Zealand as opposed to say India or even Australia.

What is this mysterious threshold in regards to Watling that you refer to? Are you BJ Watling? Do you know all his personal threshold of satisfaction for all his decisions surrounding financial opportunity to be made? Do you know what his current and future opportunities are? Do you know what his aspirations are? Have you made the decision that he is content and shall remain content regardless of his future opportunities should they arise? My sole assumption is the rational assumption that he will want more pay than what he earns now, either presently or in the future, so as to secure his financial future and to do that he would want to increase his total earning potential to lead a better life in the long term. Because I understand the flaws of broad economic theory in explaining human nature of individuals, I do understand that he may not in fact be absolutely rational all the time.But don't tell me that as an international professional cricketer he is content in securing his long term financial life based on a 150k a year from his playing career which will be over at around 40 at best and quite likely earlier, even if he remains in form for several years from now. Furthermore, don't tell me that a possible star cricketer if good at another sporting code with greater or more readily available higher salaries making the chance of financial success less risky, would not consider playing that sport instead such as Rugby. Don't even tell me that a superstar cricketer or coach would not consider retiring NZ sports to take a commercial opportunity or consider moving if any only temporarily to a country with higher salaries. Even cricket commentators like Jeremy Coney have moved on. I don't miss Danny Morrison.

Furthermore, I never made the assumption that NZers hate Test Cricket and won't watch it. Quite the opposite in fact. I said "Aren't some fans drawn into ODI cricket likely to become interested in test cricket." Now it does make the assumption that ODI cricket will get more bums on seats and higher ratings on television in New Zealand than Test Cricket from the cricket neutral audience to be drawn into the game. You are free to challenge that point if you want.

You are rather condescending and ignorant to assume to know someone's knowledge and understanding of concepts. The former is an assumption at best and the latter, and given the errors in your analysis, I don't think your'e capable of the latter. Talking of BJ or any other cricketer starving is irrelevant and a failed use of hyperbole to clutch at straws to make a point. Its not even accurate enough to qualify as a strawman.



I am quite well versed in sociological, political science, and economic theory thanks all the same.
 
Last edited:
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
CaptainGrumpy said:
Who the heck do you think you are, Milton Friedman?

Unfortunately I have far too much understanding of neoliberal economic concepts, and if you actually read my post it is readily accepted that he marginal utility is diminished hence where I wrote "'Im not calling any professional cricketer a money whore. You keep bringing that topic up. Out of curiosity do you think Dan Carter is a money whore? I do not. Players will play for less to play for NZ longer or coach in NZ longer, but you have to make the decision easier for them. if matching is impossible, at least lessen the opportunity cost." I quite understand that the quality of life is not linear with salary. But it does increase with more money. So the point remains entirely intact. I notice that you have ignored Flemming, Vettori and Bond's lengthened playing and coaching careers in New Zealand as opposed to India.

What is this mysterious threshold in regards to Watling that you refer to? Are you BJ Watling? Do you know all his personal threshold of satisfaction for all his decisions surrounding financial opportunity to be made? Do you know what his current and future opportunities are? Do you know what his aspirations are? Have you made the decision that he is content and shall remain content regardless of his future opportunities should they arise? My sole assumption is the rational assumption that he will want more pay than what he earns now, either presently or in the future, so as to secure his financial future and to do that he would want to increase his total earning potential to lead a better life in the long term. Because I understand the flaws of broad economic theory in explaining human nature of individuals, I do understand that he may not in fact be absolutely rational all the time.But don't tell me that as an international professional cricketer he is content in securing his long term financial life based on a 150k a year from his playing career which will be over at around 40 at best and quite likely earlier, even if he remains in form. Furthermore, don't tell me that a possible star cricketer if good at another sporting code with greater or more readily available higher salaries making the chance of financial success less risky, would not consider playing that sport instead such as Rugby. Don't even tell me that a superstar cricketer or coach would not consider retiring NZ or moving to a country with higher salaries. Even cricket commentators like Jeremy Coney have moved on.

Furthermore, I never made the assumption that NZers hate Test Cricket and won't watch it. Quite the opposite in fact. I said "Aren't some fans drawn into ODI cricket likely to become interested in test cricket." Now it does make the assumption that ODI cricket gets more bums on seats and higher ratings on television in New Zealand. You can challenge that if you want.

You rather condescending and ignorant and you should not assume to know someone's knowledge and understanding of concepts. The former is an assumption at best and the latter, and given the errors in your analysis, I don't think your capable of the latter.

I am quite well versed in sociological, political science, and economic theory thanks all the same.
Click to expand...
that didn't take long
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
Flem274* said:
that didn't take long
Click to expand...
I get dismayed at the level of ignorance in analysis people demonstrate at times.

The so called educated are most often the worst offenders. A little bit of knowledge wrongly applied.

"Oooh I know some big words and higher learning concepts and theory, I am an intellectual."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top