Contracts, IPL and McCullum exploiting loopholes

[GIMH]

Well much as it may have been tongue-in-cheek, and yes it was obvious enough, I can't help but get the feeling that you weren't completely sans-seriousness. I've always got the impression that England success in the immediate future means more to you than most things.

Erm, yes and no, I guess. The England team being successful certainly means more to me than any of the political crap going on in the world of cricket, couldn't care less about which cricket and which isn't

ICL is a tournament that made a massive impact on the cricket World for a time (mercifully, a relatively short one). How on Earth is it a non-cricketing reason?

By non-cricketing reason I mean one that has nothing to do with his likely performance. Such as being to do with a contract signed, etc.

Disagree TBH, Vegetables only had competetive football for a very, very short time, at home, and did a decent job of something that was pretty easy. Hoddle on the other hand did a tricky-ish job well. And yes, he actually realised something that possibly only I else in the county realised - that after 1996, Nigel Martyn was actually a better goalkeeper than David Seaman.

In the WCs we've qualified for in the last 25 years (i.e my life) only one manager has failed to take us into the last eight and that was Hoddle. The Argentina side that knocked us out was a very good one but we should have been facing Croatia IIRC (who wound up in the semis so it certainly wouldn't have been easy) but we contrived to lose to Romania. Had he picked Owen from the start of the tournament like he should have done then we could conceivably gone further, not picking him was inexcusable at that point, it would have almost been like Eriksson leaving Rooney on the bench in 04.

He then oversaw a defeat to Sweden and home draw with Bulgaria in qualification for Euro 2000, meaning we were in a bit of a sticky spot there when he was sacked.

Dunno what you're on about with Martyn because Seaman was picked as first choice in the WC98 and pretty much the whole time as I remember it

If Hoddle had to go then surely you acknowledge that reasons related to your own sporting ability is not the only thing concerned with whether you play sport or not. More than ever when you're representing, by chain, your country.

Yeah, it was just a sweeping statement and by 'non-cricketing reasons' I was referring to issues such as the ICL rather than acts which would cause mass offence to the nation etc etc

 

[Richard]

Erm, yes and no, I guess. The England team being successful certainly means more to me than any of the political crap going on in the world of cricket, couldn't care less about which cricket and which isn't

The game is more important than any one team though IMO, and if "the political crap" goes belly-up it puts the whole game in jeopardy. It's important, like it or not, that the cricket politics goes smoothly.

By non-cricketing reason I mean one that has nothing to do with his likely performance. Such as being to do with a contract signed, etc.

See below.

In the WCs we've qualified for in the last 25 years (i.e my life) only one manager has failed to take us into the last eight and that was Hoddle. The Argentina side that knocked us out was a very good one but we should have been facing Croatia IIRC (who wound up in the semis so it certainly wouldn't have been easy) but we contrived to lose to Romania. Had he picked Owen from the start of the tournament like he should have done then we could conceivably gone further, not picking him was inexcusable at that point, it would have almost been like Eriksson leaving Rooney on the bench in 04.

He then oversaw a defeat to Sweden and home draw with Bulgaria in qualification for Euro 2000, meaning we were in a bit of a sticky spot there when he was sacked.

Regardless of team performances, I'm sure you'd not argue that Hoddle was inferior to Graham Taylor, because he was poor, no two ways about. Under him we failed even to qualify for WC94, which is surely worse by far than failing to reach the last eight. Venables never oversaw a World Cup, he only did a home European Championship, and Keegan and McClaren were both diabolical and under them we failed as badly as Taylor. Yes, Eriksson and Capello are\were both better managers than him and I really don't know enough about the pre-Taylor managers to comment, but Hoddle is certainly the best home-grown England manager of my time (and by that I mean watching time not lifetime), IMO.

Dunno what you're on about with Martyn because Seaman was picked as first choice in the WC98 and pretty much the whole time as I remember it

Hoddle picked Martyn ahead of him during qualifiers, even if not in the finals. No-one else at any point did even that. Only time Martyn played under another manager was when Seaman was unavailable.

Yeah, it was just a sweeping statement and by 'non-cricketing reasons' I was referring to issues such as the ICL rather than acts which would cause mass offence to the nation etc etc

"Off-field reasons" then rather than "non-cricketing reasons".

 

[GIMH]

Oh Hoddle was better than Taylor, no doubt about that but I'd pick El Tel every time, and Robson as well (who obviously you said you don't know enough about).

"Off-field reasons" is open to the same pedantry as "non-cricketing reasons" tbh

 

[Richard]

I'm surprised you followed football so acutely as you evidently did at the age of 5 TBH. Didn't you have better things to do, like, well, watching Playbus and Fireman Sam or saying "mummy can I have a drink?"

 

[GIMH]

I'm surprised you followed cricket in the early 1900s so closely given that you were a good 80-odd years away from being born

 

[fredfertang]

I'll look it up. Might be worth a feature at some stage.

...... in which case you'll need to be aware of the very similar case that Younis Ahmed brought against Surrey at about the same time - he lost too but unlike Bish he didn't get past the preliminary issue

and of course Lanky have had a couple of recent spats with Employment Tribunals

 

[Richard]

I'm surprised you followed cricket in the early 1900s so closely given that you were a good 80-odd years away from being born

I didn't TBH - even now I don't know vast amounts about it. I've only followed cricket since 1992.

 

[GIMH]

Haha, my point is you do have quite a lot of opinions on who was great and who wasn't from before your time because you've studied the game so extensively, as a youngster I studied the 86 and 90 WCs extensively. Still remember the first time I saw Hand of God, felt so outraged and wanted to cry, can't imagine what it was like for those who watched it live

Have memories of watching Italia 90 as I was six years old but they were pretty vague. back then I only supported England, it wasn't until 91 that I became football obsessed

 

[trapol]

Again please explain the difference as Bond is an independent contractor and therefore entitled to go off and play for whomever he wants. NZC banning him from representing NZ is restraint of trade as he was th enumber 1-2-3 ranked bowler in the world at the time so you cant say he would not make the team on merit alone.

So in fact NZC was telling him who he can and cant play for and thats where they would fall foul

I dont know anything about KP or any other englishman as i dont know whether or not they are employees of their counties/countries because this does make a huge difference. ie in Australia if a nationally contracted player was to take up a county contract he has to forgo certain percentage of his Aust contract because he is an employee and as such is not able to perform the duties of his deal.

In NZ, NZC can not stop you playing for somebody else as being a cricketer in NZ is in essence no different to being a plumber who works for himself and goes around town (in the case the world) performing jobs for different people, and thats why Bond, if he so wished couldve taken NZC to court

 

[Richard]

He could have taken them to court beyond question. And, presumably, still could.

But I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this - he could not have got a court to force them to pick him.

 

[Richard]

Haha, my point is you do have quite a lot of opinions on who was great and who wasn't from before your time because you've studied the game so extensively, as a youngster I studied the 86 and 90 WCs extensively. Still remember the first time I saw Hand of God, felt so outraged and wanted to cry, can't imagine what it was like for those who watched it live

Have memories of watching Italia 90 as I was six years old but they were pretty vague. back then I only supported England, it wasn't until 91 that I became football obsessed

Ah I see - your Sir Bob > Not-So-Sir Glenn ideas are formulated from vague memories and plenty of backdated research. Now I gets what yo's on about.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Oh Hoddle was better than Taylor, no doubt about that but I'd pick El Tel every time, and Robson as well (who obviously you said you don't know enough about).

"Off-field reasons" is open to the same pedantry as "non-cricketing reasons" tbh

Venables is a complete myth; since leaving England in a huff he's been absolute cack everywhere he's been apart from half a season at Boro. He's only got the rep he has because half of Fleet Street live in his capacious arsehole. He might be a better man-manager than Glenda, but tactically Hoddle has been light years ahead of any English manager who has had the England job that I can properly remember, Robson included. There's been quite a bit of revisionsim gone on with Sir Bobby, he was a lovely bloke but when he was the England manager he was largely reviled. There's a school of thought that says we only did as well as we did in 1990 because a cadre of senior players ignored his wishes and unilaterally informed him we were switching to 5-3-2 after the opening draw with Eire or he'd face an open mutiny.

Even then his record doesn't stand up to too close scrutiny; we made the semis in 90 by beating the giants of the world game that are Egypt, Belgium & Cameroon. The latter two both after extra time with a last-minute goal and two Lineker penalties, respectively. Ironically our best performance was against Jerry in the semi we lost on pens. In 86 we were a game from going out in the group, we'd lost 1-0 to Portugal (who weren't anything like the force they've become, it was their first WC since 66) & draw 0-0 with Morocco. It was only when Captain Poof dislocated his shoulder (again) & Beardsley was brought in to give Sir Gary some ammunition we finally got it together to thrash the Poles.

Hoddle was a woeful man manager (losing the dressing room cost him the job ultimately, rather than his wacky opinions on the disabled), but I don't think Venebles or Robson could've taken England to Rome to secure a result to qualify like he did in 1997. Got the job too young (IMHO) and tried to distance himself too much from his players (some of whom he'd played with), which lead to some strange public annoucements.

 

[GIMH]

I don't dispute that Venables has been a complete joke since the England job (and let's not forget he was part of the team that failed to get us to Euro 08) but he did a good job in charge of the team in 96. You say Venables couldn't have got the result in Rome that Hoddle did, I say that he wouldn't have needed it because we wouldn't have lost at Wembley to Italy under Venables.

I don't disagree with much of what you've said but at the end of the day it's a results business and the last 16 is not anything to write home about in the WC. Hoddle stubbornly left Owen on the sidelines at the beginning of the tournament and that ultimately cost us.

 

[trapol]

Richard - and i also dont know how many times i have to say it.

Yes he could force them to pick him.

He was nationally contracted at the time, is an independent contractor and was told by NZC that he could go off and sign with the ICL if he continued to play for NZ

Yes you are entitled to your opinion but please make sure its informed and not just your opinion as its certainly not gospel

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't dispute that Venables has been a complete joke since the England job (and let's not forget he was part of the team that failed to get us to Euro 08) but he did a good job in charge of the team in 96. You say Venables couldn't have got the result in Rome that Hoddle did, I say that he wouldn't have needed it because we wouldn't have lost at Wembley to Italy under Venables.

I don't disagree with much of what you've said but at the end of the day it's a results business and the last 16 is not anything to write home about in the WC. Hoddle stubbornly left Owen on the sidelines at the beginning of the tournament and that ultimately cost us.

96 was barely a pass mark IMHO. Semis at home is the very least we should've done.

To get there we needed penalties to beat serial chokers Spain, who'd had what looked a legitimate goal disallowed. We drew with Switzerland, beat a typically gash Scotland and an imploding and uninterested Holland, who even then had enough about them to get a goal when they had to to make sure they qualified ahead of Scotland on GD. It was a good result to beat the Dutch 4-1, but it didn't even knock them out.

 

[GIMH]

I'll give you the Scotland, Spain and Switzerland game, but don't try and take the Holland game away from me please, it's probably the second best England game I've ever seen

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'll give you the Scotland, Spain and Switzerland game, but don't try and take the Holland game away from me please, it's probably the second best England game I've ever seen

It was a good result, as I said, but ultimately it was really about deciding who finished top and who finished runners-up in the group.

I just reckon with Venables there's never been a "top" manager whose reputation is based on so little. I think his myth is largely based on him buying the London hacks drinks when they went to his club & his players thinking he's a "good bloke" because he lets them do whatever they want (remember the dentist's chair on the Hong Kong/China tour before the tournament).

I'll admit I am biased, but because I think the man's a ****, not because he's a T*ttenham man. Hoddle's probably more of one.

 

[GIMH]

Like I say, I generally agree with you on Venables in general but I thought he did a good job with the England side, especially given where we were when he took over.

 

[Richard]

Richard - and i also dont know how many times i have to say it.

Yes he could force them to pick him.

No, he couldn't. No player can ever do that.