*Official* India Tour of England 2018

[karan316]

Vaughan needs to be put in his place, overdoes everything for attention. Love Rashid's response.

No one listens to Vaughan - Rashid lashes out at "stupid" comments - ESPNcricinfo

 

[Mr Miyagi]

That’s not the point though. He had made himself technically available to play, Rashid refused to do that and even declined to play last week.

Yeah, that's the point.

The next question is does it matter?

If a guy isn't being paid to play FC games, and says "I'm available for tests but not FC", is this a reason to not pick him?

Take a guess according to cricHQ how many domestic first class games AB de Villiers has played since 2008.

Two. In 10 years. Across global seasons. Just 2 according to cricHQ

https://www.crichq.com/players/283428/statistics/domestic.

He has played 114 test matches and only 141 FC games, that's a difference of 27, and some of these (I count 15 for his SA franchises for his entire cricket career) will be SA tour games.

I

 

[Black_Warrior]

That’s not the point though. He had made himself technically available to play, Rashid refused to do that and even declined to play last week.

I'm pretty sure going into play IPL during English FC season was not making himself 'technically available'.

Either way, my original point was, with Ed Smith in the selection team, I would expect to see such decisions more often as there is a clear effort to move away from the traditional approach. Whether that's good or bad is not my argument.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I'm pretty sure going into play IPL during English FC season was not making himself 'technically available'.

Not really, you're still conflating missing early season games with prospective and continued unavailability due to red ball retirement from English FC with ECB contracted players allowed to go and play IPL and return for red ball county cricket later. We all get your point of missing games, but the reasons and continued effects are different, and that is what some people are taking issue with.

Either way, my original point was, with Ed Smith in the selection team, I would expect to see such decisions more often as there is a clear effort to move away from the traditional approach. Whether that's good or bad is not my argument.

This is actually a very good question and is actually a real issue for many cricketing boards and cricketers moving forward - not just in England. See my AB dV post above. This is quite possibly going to become a bigger issue for many players in many nations moving forward.

So it is fair to debate whether it is good or bad.

Do we want to see players retire from test cricket just because they cannot be bothered with domestic FC as international cricketers, or do we want to see our test cricketers grinding in domestic FC and reward them with test spots in addition to their white ball careers?

Is test cricket a job and based on pure meritocracy of performance as the ideal (so you can skip domestic FC), or a reward for regular and stellar domestic FC performance serving the improvement of all cricket in your board? Which is the greater ideal?

We know what most intl players will think, being the former, human nature is to seek autonomy. Domestic FC but non intl players may have a different bias. But the question is what should the administrators do in our opinion as the fans? Personally I favor autonomy. Let the players choose what they will and not work in, and pay them accordingly. So test without FC domestic is a valid option if the player is good enough.

For what its worth, NZC makes the players make themselves available, but is happy to rest them, and then tells them (even KW and Boult) to go have holidays even from intl duty anyway. Munro has made himself an exception, though like Rashid with a white ball only contract. And this was also accepted by NZC. So player autonomy is on the increase with boards. But Munro has not been recalled into the test squad as yet (even though his FC numbers more than warranted such a call up).

 

[Black_Warrior]

First of all, the 'cannot be bothered with FC/Test cricket' is a lazy explanation used for a wide variety of players with very different contexts, environments and reasons

AB's reasons are very different from Shakib's reasons which are very different from Rashid's reasons, which are very different from Afridi's reasons.

Rashid was dropped and England management (whether they admit it or not) genuinely looked at other Test spinners (Bess and Leach)

Rashid had every reason to believe his Test career was over and since he was still a regular member of the LO sides, he focused on that. His call up has more to do with changes in selection policy.

And yes, test cricket is absolutely a job. Any professional cricket is a job, a career and people make decisions on their career for a wide variety of reasons - the financial component being a large part of it, but not the only thing.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

First of all, the 'cannot be bothered with FC/Test cricket' is a lazy explanation used for a wide variety of players with very different contexts, environments and reasons

AB's reasons are very different from Shakib's reasons which are very different from Rashid's reasons, which are very different from Afridi's reasons.

No. You're wrong. Those that are not wanting to play tests are exempt. Because the issue is those not wanting to play domestic FC but still available for tests. So those who don't want to play tests, are irrelevant.

Rashid was dropped and England management (whether they admit it or not) genuinely looked at other Test spinners (Bess and Leach)

Rashid had every reason to believe his Test career was over and since he was still a regular member of the LO sides, he focused on that.

Okay - I'll agree. He made an employment decision.

His call up has more to do with changes in selection policy.

Okay, I'll agree. But how is this relevant to whether the policy is a good one or not? With all due respect, you appear to be missing the point I made in my post.

I accept there are changes in policy, the debate is about the policy being good or bad!

And yes, test cricket is absolutely a job. Any professional cricket is a job, a career and people make decisions on their career for a wide variety of reasons - the financial component being a large part of it, but not the only thing.

Yups, so this explains ABdV and Rashid, I agree, but is this the view that the cricket boards should have in our opinions as fans?

Personally - I agree with you. But there will be some fans who see test cricket as a reward for FC domestic performance (making domestic FC a requirement) and not based on part-time employment like a job.

I'm on the autonomy and job side myself. So I have no major issue with the policy. But I see the debate. And I see why some fans are not happy with it.

And trust me, there is a debate for the Boards to decide what the requirements for test selection are. A Board is well within its rights to reward those who are actively improving the standards of FC cricket within their nation as a requirement.

But as a cricket fan, I want to see the best players, whether they contribute to domestic FC or not, and I value their individual autonomy even if it at the cost of domestic FC standards. If it is 50/50 - favour the guy who plays domestic, that's fine by me. The truth is only established intl players are going to get by on being selected for tests without playing FC domestic unless a Board is desperate or foolish. So just take it out of their salaries for not playing FC!

 

[Shri]

Not really, you're still conflating missing early season games with prospective and continued unavailability due to red ball retirement from English FC with ECB contracted players allowed to go and play IPL and return for red ball county cricket later. We all get your point of missing games, but the reasons and continued effects are different, and that is what some people are taking issue with.



This is actually a very good question and is actually a real issue for many cricketing boards and cricketers moving forward - not just in England. See my AB dV post above. This is quite possibly going to become a bigger issue for many players in many nations moving forward.

So it is fair to debate whether it is good or bad.

Do we want to see players retire from test cricket just because they cannot be bothered with domestic FC as international cricketers, or do we want to see our test cricketers grinding in domestic FC and reward them with test spots in addition to their white ball careers?

Is test cricket a job and based on pure meritocracy of performance as the ideal (so you can skip domestic FC), or a reward for regular and stellar domestic FC performance serving the improvement of all cricket in your board? Which is the greater ideal?

We know what most intl players will think, being the former, human nature is to seek autonomy. Domestic FC but non intl players may have a different bias. But the question is what should the administrators do in our opinion as the fans? Personally I favor autonomy. Let the players choose what they will and not work in, and pay them accordingly. So test without FC domestic is a valid option if the player is good enough.

For what its worth, NZC makes the players make themselves available, but is happy to rest them, and then tells them (even KW and Boult) to go have holidays even from intl duty anyway. Munro has made himself an exception, though like Rashid with a white ball only contract. And this was also accepted by NZC. So player autonomy is on the increase with boards. But Munro has not been recalled into the test squad as yet (even though his FC numbers more than warranted such a call up).

You keep saying. our. You are in NZ, ****.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You keep saying. our. You are in NZ, ****.

And?

1 I am EU citizen with a passport.
2 I am a UK citizen with a passport (same little red book as above).
3 I am a Kiwi with a NZ passport.

But more than any of the above, I'm an intl cricket fan. I'll watch India play Australia, and I want to see the best players play.

I want the same when I watch SA play WI, Pak or SL.

I'm an intl cricket fan. Like many of us. And our viewing subscription fees or ads watched ultimately help pay the bills everywhere directly and indirectly.

So when I say "our" I'm not referring to NZ, Eng, or anywhere else, I mean the global cricket community of fans and their teams that they support or merely watch. Because this is meant to be a world game. And trust me, whatever England decides has a bearing on NZ and many more former colonial boards as these guys like rule comity (no offence, I know you're a law student, but look this word up if you don't know it already).

And seriously, as an Indian fan in Australia, you should appreciate globalization better than most people :P

But this is a global issue that effects SA with ABdV previously, NZ with Munro now, and England is on point with Rashid for this debate right now. And it is going to become more common. (Have you noticed how few domestic FC games some established intl players are playing these days, regardless of country they represent and intl clashes?)

 

[Daemon]

Imo at the end of the day, a selectors job is to pick the best available squad. Whether that means picking a guy like Rashid, debuting a 16 yo Tendulkar or bringing back a retired Cowdrey to face Lillee and Thomson, it does not matter imo.

However if people think there will be negative long term implications to English cricket as a result of this then sure I think that's a fair argument. It is the board's responsibility to look after the long term interests of cricket after all.

 

[Hicheal Michael]

One could argue Rashid's selection will not result in a negative long term implication - it is merely a symptom of one.

 

[Shri]

Just two days away. Nervous and excited for this.

 

[marc71178]

Just two days away. Nervous and excited for this.

What's so exciting about the eve of the series?

 

[FBU]

@chetannarula
Newsflash: Team India's extra practice session today (after reducing tour match from 4 to 3 days cos of heat wave in Chelmsford) has been cancelled owing to heavy rains in Birmingham. #EngvInd

 

[Borges]

I'm delighted. Serves them right.

 

[Starfighter]

after reducing tour match from 4 to 3 days cos of heat wave in Chelmsford

Was that the reason? I'd have thought the Indians would be used to the heat.

 

[weldone]

So, Shastri has pretty much indicated that Rahul will not play the first test but may come in later in series if one of the top three fail.

Someone kick Shastri out please

 

[harsh.ag]

Okay this has gone on long enough. Kohli and Shastri out. They aren't learning. They won't learn. They are both a specific kind of confident moron. Pull the plug, please, for the love of all that is Dravid, pull the goddamn plug

 

[Moonsorrow999]

England are such a lucky team of late. England in S.A no Steyn or Philander. S.A in England again S.A attack was a bit crippled. In Aus Pattinson was out and now with India they have Kumar who is over-rated on this forum but nevertheless a good bowler and Bumrah who started well in international cricket. Meanwhile Broad and Anderson just keep turning up. England big favourites for this now imo, Umesh will need to play a blinder since Cook will milk any average bowling. This series looked a lot closer 1-2 months ago but now I'd say England huge favourites, India's batting looks frail.

 

[weldone]

England are such a lucky team of late. England in S.A no Steyn or Philander. S.A in England again S.A attack was a bit crippled. In Aus Pattinson was out and now with India they have Kumar who is over-rated on this forum but nevertheless a good bowler and Bumrah who started well in international cricket. Meanwhile Broad and Anderson just keep turning up. England big favourites for this now imo, Umesh will need to play a blinder since Cook will milk any average bowling. This series looked a lot closer 1-2 months ago but now I'd say England huge favourites, India's batting looks frail.

You shouldn't always associate 'luck' only with keeping players fit. There's a lot of hard work and planning involved in keeping your key players fit.

 

[MW1304]

England are lucky because their two best bowlers can actually stay on the park?

Okay.