England Central Contracts & Increment Contracts

[Stats]

Announced today as per link http://www.ecb.co.uk/ecb/about-ecb/media-releases/stanford-super-series-squad,302377,EN.html

Vaughan given a central contract, interesting to see if he can force his way back into the side especially when Pietersen wants 5 front line bowlers.

Also can't believe they have included Tim Ambrose in the increment contracts, whats the point? Basically tells us that he's the choice behind Prior, another kick in the teeth for the rest of the talented wicket keepers in the country.

 

[Pubey]

Announced today as per link http://www.ecb.co.uk/ecb/about-ecb/media-releases/stanford-super-series-squad,302377,EN.html

Vaughan given a central contract, interesting to see if he can force his way back into the side especially when Pietersen wants 5 front line bowlers.

Also can't believe they have included Tim Ambrose in the increment contracts, whats the point? Basically tells us that he's the choice behind Prior, another kick in the teeth for the rest of the talented wicket keepers in the country.

well Prior is on an incremental contract too.. so doesn't it say that they are both going to get the chance to prove they should be wearing the gloves? Priors performances in the ODIs with both gloves and bat have shown (to me) that he has come on leaps and bounds since his last stint with the test side, and so should be given another chance

 

[number11]

well Prior is on an incremental contract too.. so doesn't it say that they are both going to get the chance to prove they should be wearing the gloves? Priors performances in the ODIs with both gloves and bat have shown (to me) that he has come on leaps and bounds since his last stint with the test side, and so should be given another chance

I think Stats is reffering to the fact that a decent stumper such as Foster appears to still be behind Tiny Tim in the pecking order.......would be odd not to take him on tour when given such a contract yet I really thought this time Fosters recognition would come about....

I am a big fan of Vaughan and dont mind him being given the chance to stake a claim for the ashes. I understand he is friends with KP and therefore as long as the move has KP's blessing its no bad thing. With Shah, Bopara and Patel on the nearlies list there is at least some competition and Im sure if Vaughan doesnt weigh in with some runs then he wont be given too many 'token' caps.

The 15 in for the Stanford game must be pretty chuffed. Im disappointed Sidebottom is in there but can understand why given the variation he brings.

On the Stanford game, I know each player on the winning side gets about half a million quid. Why didnt the the ECB insist that the winner takes all game saw the board get the money. Surely 5.5 million quid would serve the game better being re-invested then in the pockets of players. Surely if they are contracted to the ECB then the ECB could have negotiated this arrangement.

 

[Stats]

I think Stats is reffering to the fact that a decent stumper such as Foster appears to still be behind Tiny Tim in the pecking order.......would be odd not to take him on tour when given such a contract yet I really thought this time Fosters recognition would come about....

I am a big fan of Vaughan and dont mind him being given the chance to stake a claim for the ashes. I understand he is friends with KP and therefore as long as the move has KP's blessing its no bad thing. With Shah, Bopara and Patel on the nearlies list there is at least some competition and Im sure if Vaughan doesnt weigh in with some runs then he wont be given too many 'token' caps.

The 15 in for the Stanford game must be pretty chuffed. Im disappointed Sidebottom is in there but can understand why given the variation he brings.

On the Stanford game, I know each player on the winning side gets about half a million quid. Why didnt the the ECB insist that the winner takes all game saw the board get the money. Surely 5.5 million quid would serve the game better being re-invested then in the pockets of players. Surely if they are contracted to the ECB then the ECB could have negotiated this arrangement.

Spot on, what I was eluding to was there is no need to give 2 wicketkeepers Increment contracts, this pretty much says that other glovemen will have a near impossible task of dislodging Prior and Ambrose.

Prior with the confidence he showed with both gloves and bat during the one day series cemented his place for the Stanford series and the India one dayers. Fully expect him to be now selected for the test series in India as well.

He's a classic example of someone who had a chance, underachieved (primarily with the gloves, went away worked hard and got his chance again and took it with both hands.

Had the selectors only given Prior the Increment contract then that would of made all the other keepers sit up. Ambrose would of known that he had to up his game and improve to get back in whilst the rest of the county glovemen would know that should Prior fail then they'd be in with a chance providing they were playing well.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

Poor old Fozzie, god knows what he's done wrong.

 

[Stats]

Poor old Fozzie, god knows what he's done wrong.

He needs to move to Sussex over the close season, he may get a call up then. Also I'd suggest he shave off all his hair.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

He needs to move to Sussex over the close season, he may get a call up then. Also I'd suggest he shave off all his hair.

:clap::goodun:

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

...On the Stanford game, I know each player on the winning side gets about half a million quid. Why didnt the the ECB insist that the winner takes all game saw the board get the money. Surely 5.5 million quid would serve the game better being re-invested then in the pockets of players. Surely if they are contracted to the ECB then the ECB could have negotiated this arrangement.

That scenario would have benfited the game. Unfortunately, the ECB hastily arranged the Stanford series as a means to stop its international stars from joining the lucrative IPL for a lengthy period of time, so it basically means that the players are rewarded hansomely (should they win) for three hours' work. Much as I have enjoyed Twenty20 cricket this season, the money in it (as in top-flight football) could ruin the game.

 

[number11]

That scenario would have benfited the game. Unfortunately, the ECB hastily arranged the Stanford series as a means to stop its international stars from joining the lucrative IPL for a lengthy period of time, so it basically means that the players are rewarded hansomely (should they win) for three hours' work. Much as I have enjoyed Twenty20 cricket this season, the money in it (as in top-flight football) could ruin the game.

Seems very poor thinking to me. I guess they therefore were viewing it that if they give our players the opportunity to make it rich in one game they wont feel the need to play in the IPL. Personally, for the time being the IPL is here to stay and will continue to be a lure. I dont see why the ECB dont embrace it like the ACB and other countries boards. Find a slot for them to play and then the players will have to prove themselves to attract the right offers from the Indian franchises. Playing under that kind of atmosphere and tension, against world class players will only help the players develop....even more so if its the fringe players like Bopara and even Napier who went over there.

I just cant see how the Standford (is therea 'd' in the middle?!) game can help cricket and will only cause jealousy amongst our team from those who are picked and those that are not. Also, imagine if someone overthrows it like Swann did against New Zealand!! This game and the money involved going straight to the players makes me feel very uneasy about the situation. If it was the boards who got the money then at least some good can come of it (unless it was just spend on G&T's and 'fact finding missions'...).