• 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.

Was it the right decision to give Dan Cullen a Cricket Australia contract?

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Australia needs Dan Cullen to be a successful player, but was it the right decision to give him a contract after only one season. Giving him a contract is going to do one of two things; continue his development or hinder it because of the expectation.

I can't imagine what it would be like to have so much pressure put on you after only one season of first class cricket. Perhaps the better decision would have been to say we are keeping an eye on you and we think you have a lot of potential. But now with a contract there is a lot of pressure for him to perform and earn his contract. What is going to happen to the bloke if he loses it after just one year? Perhaps a bit too early to call.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
he looks an OK bowler to me, with Hogg injured this summer he may well play ODI cricket.

hes basically a like for like replacement on the list for Hauritz

hopefully he will improve and become a good player for Australia
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
I think it was fair enough. Cullen is clearly the most noteworthy young spinner in Australia, had a great debut season and deserved the recognition.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I'm inclined to agree with Kyle. Now CA are forced to put their eggs all in one basket a bit, they've made a commitment to this guy over the long term by contracting him at such a young age. However, they've put their eggs into a pretty high quality basket...
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
aussie said:
yes i think it was, deserves the recognition after that good season..
With regards to that - it sets a dangerous precedent. Lets say this year Beau Casson takes 40 wickets and then does not get a Cricket Australia contract - what sort of message does this send to him? You'll forever be behind Cullen? You didn't deserve your 40 wickets? They weren't good enough to get a contract?

Makes things a bit messy using that sort of logic.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
vic_orthdox said:
With regards to that - it sets a dangerous precedent. Lets say this year Beau Casson takes 40 wickets and then does not get a Cricket Australia contract - what sort of message does this send to him? You'll forever be behind Cullen? You didn't deserve your 40 wickets? They weren't good enough to get a contract?

Makes things a bit messy using that sort of logic.
but if Cullen has a good season this year again, what'll happen then?
 

howardj

International Coach
The flip-side to a contract placing too much expectation/pressure upon him, is that - as with many top class athletes - the extra pressure, or the 'sniff' of higher honours, could inspire him.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
vic_orthdox said:
Not relevant to the point that I'm making.
think about it your saying if Casson were to 40 odd wickets this season and doesn't get contract CA will be sending the message that`` He'll forever be behind Cullen?, he didn't deserve his 40 wickets? They weren't good enough to get a contract?.

But if Cullen was to do well again this season that kind of dilemma wont come up...
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
aussie said:
think about it your saying if Casson were to 40 odd wickets this season and doesn't get contract CA will be sending the message that`` He'll forever be behind Cullen?, he didn't deserve his 40 wickets? They weren't good enough to get a contract?.

But if Cullen was to do well again this season that kind of dilemma wont come up...
That's part of the assumtion.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
SirBloody Idiot said:
I'd think Casson would be ahead of Cullen if he takes 40 wickets playing half his games on the WACA.
The name "Casson" was also irrelevant. Just anyone who isn't a Clarke or a White who is "destined" to play for Australia.
 

howardj

International Coach
As much as the selectors say that they just pick the best 25 players and give them a contract, Ive got no doubt that they look to fill certain spots. Fact is, with the demise of Hauritz, there was a vacancy for an off-spinner, and like most selections in sport, Cullen was in the right place at the right time. Apart from all that though, forty wickets for an off-spinner, on Australian pitches, is outstanding - debut season or not.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
As much as the selectors say that they just pick the best 25 players and give them a contract, Ive got no doubt that they look to fill certain spots.
And thats exactly how they should do it. They arent going to have contracts to 25 wicket keepers just because they are the best 25 players in the country - they have to balance the "squad". Basically, they pick the 25 players that they think have the biggest chance of playing for Australia in the following year.
 

howardj

International Coach
Prince EWS said:
And thats exactly how they should do it. They arent going to have contracts to 25 wicket keepers just because they are the best 25 players in the country - they have to balance the "squad". Basically, they pick the 25 players that they think have the biggest chance of playing for Australia in the following year.
Hohns was quoted as saying that they pick the best 25, regardless.

I dont believe it either
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
The big question should be why did Micheal Lewis get a contract over Stuart Clark. Lewis deserved his contract, but if the selector rate him so highly then why didn't they select him as McGarth cover when he was in England.

Dan Cullen looks quite good to me and is third in line for the ODI and Test team, so i guess he deserves it. There are better fast bowlers and batsmen then him in Australia that didn't get a contract, but you can only give so many contracts to batsmen and fast bowlers. There no point in really give a contract to someone who isn't going to play. Which makes it even stranger that Lewis got a contract, if he wasn't next in line.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
chaminda_00 said:
The big question should be why did Micheal Lewis get a contract over Stuart Clark. Lewis deserved his contract, but if the selector rate him so highly then why didn't they select him as McGarth cover when he was in England.

as has been said Lewis wasn't in England as Clark was.
 

social

Hall of Fame Member
howardj said:
As much as the selectors say that they just pick the best 25 players and give them a contract, Ive got no doubt that they look to fill certain spots. Fact is, with the demise of Hauritz, there was a vacancy for an off-spinner, and like most selections in sport, Cullen was in the right place at the right time. Apart from all that though, forty wickets for an off-spinner, on Australian pitches, is outstanding - debut season or not.
True but having seen him bowl for the first time recently, it appears he needs heaps of work on his action - more time than not, he is past the perpendicular.

Obviously an investment in the future but why the rush for a contract when Warne and MacGill have a few years left? It's not as though he's about to pack up and go somewhere else.
 

Top