• 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.

Cricket Australia Contracts

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Yes and no. They set the standard by picking Gilly late and have followed suit with Haddin and looks like they'll do the same with Manou.
The thing is, Manou's only one year younger than Haddin. The gap between Gilchrist and Haddin is six years, and the gap between Healy and Gilchrist is eight years, so I do think this is quite a different situation.

I expected them to pick someone who could potentially take over from Haddin when he retired - not that I think that's right, but that's what I was expecting. Manou is going to retire at about the same time as Haddin.. it's not like he's heir to the throne like Haddin and Gilchrist before him quite obviously were.

Pleased they've gone with the next best candidate irrespective of age though, TBH.
 
Last edited:

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
They wouldn’t touch Cam White with a barge pole in South Africa and didn’t he feel he was worthy enough to tour the UAE, so **** knows why he has a contract…
 

oitoitoi

State Vice-Captain
Gosh they hand these things out like candy! Why do they contract so many players? There's only 6 sides to choose from anyway? Shouldn't not getting one be a big incentive to improve? Realistically CA is only going to ever pick from that set of contracted players, with the odd david warner thrown in, why give everyone one, aren't central contracts just for established players and really bright prospects?

Surely

Doug Bollinger
Ben Hilfenhaus
maybe David Hussey
Graham Manou
Shaun Marsh
Andrew McDonald
possibly Marcus North
Cameron White

haven't really earned them yet? Thought contracted players should be your certainties on the team sheet, everyone else should be fighting to get one the next year (or IMO 6 months). Seems like a certain number are handed out for the sake of it to an extent. I get that state players aren't paid too well, but less contracts and more money going to state cricket might be a better thing?
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
Disgraceful that Jaques was dropped from contract.

It is probably just politics (he doesn't appear to be well liked by some of the administration - witness his disgraceful non-selection in 2006/07 ODIs) to ensure Hughes and Katich feel comfortable with their places. Still should be our reserve batsman IMO. Noone else is out there at his age with as many runs on the board, both domestically and internationally, in all formats.

Why the hell is Cameron White, Dave Hussey and Brad Hodge on the list ahead of Jaques anyway? The first two are proven domestic performers and proven international failures and Hodge surely must be considered as nothing more than a stopgap by now.

Madness I say.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Gosh they hand these things out like candy! Why do they contract so many players? There's only 6 sides to choose from anyway? Shouldn't not getting one be a big incentive to improve? Realistically CA is only going to ever pick from that set of contracted players, with the odd david warner thrown in, why give everyone one, aren't central contracts just for established players and really bright prospects?

Surely

Doug Bollinger
Ben Hilfenhaus
maybe David Hussey
Graham Manou
Shaun Marsh
Andrew McDonald
possibly Marcus North
Cameron White

haven't really earned them yet? Thought contracted players should be your certainties on the team sheet, everyone else should be fighting to get one the next year (or IMO 6 months). Seems like a certain number are handed out for the sake of it to an extent. I get that state players aren't paid too well, but less contracts and more money going to state cricket might be a better thing?
Different system to others. Think it makes more sense, otherwise you have the situation such as England at the moment, where more than half the team doesn't have contracts. Gives CA greater control over more of their players, as well.

If anything, it actually takes the pressure off the states and gives them more money to work with, as these players aren't paid by their states at all. No state player can be paid more than the lowest CA contracted player (although there's a loophole RE: assistant coaches).
 

Noble One

International Vice-Captain
My thoughts regarding the second wickekeeper.

Very happy with the Manou selection as reserve wicketkeeper. Clearly the number two wicketkeeper in the country currently. He is a guarantee to do a tidy job behind the stumps, exactly what a reserve wickekeeper must do. Ability to bat well is a mere bonus. Has a wealth of cricketing experience behind him now, deserves his contract.

Would have felt uneasy if one of Paine or Wade picked up a CA contract. These two cricketers are obviously our brightest wicketkeeping prospects for the future, but it would send the wrong message to give a contract in there formative years. If Wade picked up a contract would that spur or deter Paine from furthering his game? Perhaps Wade would plateau in his development. Makes sense to select Manou, smart move by the selectors.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
I like the squad.

Glad Warner/Harris/Laughlin/McGain etc didn't make it.

The only contentious choice is the exclusion of Jaques who probably deserves his place ahead of White and D.Hussey.
 

Craig

World Traveller
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.?
 

howardj

International Coach
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.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
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.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
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.
 

pasag

RTDAS
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.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
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.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
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.
 

pasag

RTDAS
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.
 

Noble One

International Vice-Captain
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.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
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.
 

Top