How does a central contract help this situation? Equally, Ollie Robinson is centrally contracted but only plays a dozen games a year at most, has made just three appearances for Sussex and three for England in the last six months with the last one being two months ago.
I expected to see Robinson feature for Sussex in these last few championship games but it appears that's not going to happen. Think the last game he played for Sussex was in May against Glamorgan.
How does a central contract help this situation? Equally, Ollie Robinson is centrally contracted but only plays a dozen games a year at most, has made just three appearances for Sussex and three for England in the last six months with the last one being two months ago.
Can't blame him looking to earn some of the franchise money now, he's right that he's always given his best etc for England when fit.
How does a central contract help this situation? Equally, Ollie Robinson is centrally contracted but only plays a dozen games a year at most, has made just three appearances for Sussex and three for England in the last six months with the last one being two months ago.
Can't blame him looking to earn some of the franchise money now, he's right that he's always given his best etc for England when fit.
I'm certainly not blaming him. The point is that when England players are centrally contracted they don't just receive a guaranteed salary of say £500K but, as Wood says, they reap the benefit of the best medical and recuperation experts around. Someone who isn't centrally contracted receives neither but could end up playing more games for England in the course of a year than someone who is.
WHY hasn't Robinson played since then, as he's not injured is he?
No Tests for ages, so he hardly needs rest, why wasn't he playing in the 50 over competition and the CC match this week?
He isn't playing because he doesn't need to. He's centrally contracted and there is no pressure on him to do so for that reason. Sussex had an outside chance of gaining promotion too and his three games in April/May for Sussex were only for the purpose of proving that he would be fit for the Ashes. Potentially he won't play for a total of seven months and even then his fitness won't be guaranteed.
WHY hasn't Robinson played since then, as he's not injured is he?
No Tests for ages, so he hardly needs rest, why wasn't he playing in the 50 over competition and the CC match this week?
He isn't playing because he doesn't need to. He's centrally contracted and there is no pressure on him to do so for that reason. Sussex had an outside chance of gaining promotion too and his three games in April/May for Sussex were only for the purpose of proving that he would be fit for the Ashes. Potentially he won't play for a total of seven months and even then his fitness won't be guaranteed.
When Jimmy is resting, he keeps himself super fit. Ditto Broady before he retired.
When Robinson is resting, you suspect he "enjoys himself"... He's actually who needs to be playing to keep himself fit.
WHY hasn't Robinson played since then, as he's not injured is he?
No Tests for ages, so he hardly needs rest, why wasn't he playing in the 50 over competition and the CC match this week?
He isn't playing because he doesn't need to. He's centrally contracted and there is no pressure on him to do so for that reason. Sussex had an outside chance of gaining promotion too and his three games in April/May for Sussex were only for the purpose of proving that he would be fit for the Ashes. Potentially he won't play for a total of seven months and even then his fitness won't be guaranteed.
When Jimmy is resting, he keeps himself super fit. Ditto Broady before he retired.
When Robinson is resting, you suspect he "enjoys himself"... He's actually who needs to be playing to keep himself fit.
I suspect that he's probably playing a lot of golf and particularly enjoys the 19th.
WHY hasn't Robinson played since then, as he's not injured is he?
No Tests for ages, so he hardly needs rest, why wasn't he playing in the 50 over competition and the CC match this week?
He isn't playing because he doesn't need to. He's centrally contracted and there is no pressure on him to do so for that reason. Sussex had an outside chance of gaining promotion too and his three games in April/May for Sussex were only for the purpose of proving that he would be fit for the Ashes. Potentially he won't play for a total of seven months and even then his fitness won't be guaranteed.
When Jimmy is resting, he keeps himself super fit. Ditto Broady before he retired.
When Robinson is resting, you suspect he "enjoys himself"... He's actually who needs to be playing to keep himself fit.
Jimmy plays for Lancashire when ever actually can.
How does a central contract help this situation? Equally, Ollie Robinson is centrally contracted but only plays a dozen games a year at most, has made just three appearances for Sussex and three for England in the last six months with the last one being two months ago.
Can't blame him looking to earn some of the franchise money now, he's right that he's always given his best etc for England when fit.
He's exactly the sort of bowler who's perfect for T20 franchises. The likes of Brett Lee and Malinga have showed how aging fast bowlers can really extend their career and thrive in the shorter format.
How does a central contract help this situation? Equally, Ollie Robinson is centrally contracted but only plays a dozen games a year at most, has made just three appearances for Sussex and three for England in the last six months with the last one being two months ago.
Can't blame him looking to earn some of the franchise money now, he's right that he's always given his best etc for England when fit.
I'm certainly not blaming him. The point is that when England players are centrally contracted they don't just receive a guaranteed salary of say £500K but, as Wood says, they reap the benefit of the best medical and recuperation experts around. Someone who isn't centrally contracted receives neither but could end up playing more games for England in the course of a year than someone who is.
Wasn't suggesting you were mate, just a general comment.
How does a central contract help this situation? Equally, Ollie Robinson is centrally contracted but only plays a dozen games a year at most, has made just three appearances for Sussex and three for England in the last six months with the last one being two months ago.
without central contracts i think we wouldn't have seen much of mark wood at all.
The Surrey opener’s hair is now 14 inches long and, once cut, will be made into a natural wig by the Little Princess Trust. The charity provides real hair wigs, free of charge, to children and young people who have lost their own hair through cancer treatment or to other conditions such as Alopecia.
In addition to donating his hair, Burns raised the £743 for the charity to cover the cost of making a wig for a young person. The Club Captain raised the amount within 24 hours of opening the fundraiser thanks to the generous support of the cricket family.
Having reached that amount, Burns is asking for any Surrey fans or Members who would like to support him to donate Dravet Syndrome UK in memory of Florence Dunn.
How does a central contract help this situation? Equally, Ollie Robinson is centrally contracted but only plays a dozen games a year at most, has made just three appearances for Sussex and three for England in the last six months with the last one being two months ago.
without central contracts i think we wouldn't have seen much of mark wood at all.
That's not what Wood says though and I genuinely believe that he would have taken every opportunity to play for England. With central contracts we have seen next to nothing of Archer. No Tests, 4 T20s and 3 ODIs in two and a half years during which time he has played twice as many matches for other teams. Players have been selected for more many matches in those 30 months that weren't on central contracts. Ollie Robinson will only play for his county if he needs to get some match time in but is still not guaranteed to be fit for Test cricket.
Central contracts provide a massive guaranteed income for a player but offer no guaranteed allegiance to England whatsoever. Last year, instead of getting his knee sorted out with an operation, Stokes opted to go to the IPL and sat and ended up sitting watching the vast majority of matches. As a result, he still hasn't been able to bowl. Now, when he has zero chance of getting an IPL contract, he might miss the Indian Test series to have that operation. Yet India don't allow their players to play in any other competitions apart from those linked to their franchises. But then they have the IPL and we have incentive of The Hundred to offer our players.
Stokes not getting his knee sorted is a problem for England. Because Stokes as a genuine all-rounder gives the side proper ballance. Stokes not being able to bowl means we are always either one batsmen or one bowler short depending on the line up.
Number of matches played in last 12 months for England of the centrally contracted players shown below - note that Brook, who is only on an incremental contract of £66,000, has played the equal most times (36) for England in the last 12 months (that stat alone makes it even more ridiculous that he isn't in the WC squad) but Foakes who made just 3 appearances was guaranteed anything up to ten times that by virtue of his central contract:
Is this a straight shoot out having these two opening given the obvious openers, Bairstow and Roy, being left out?
Bairstow and Roy have both got some sort of niggle ( allegedly ). I expect them to both play some part in this 4 game series. All to play for selection wise.
How does a central contract help this situation? Equally, Ollie Robinson is centrally contracted but only plays a dozen games a year at most, has made just three appearances for Sussex and three for England in the last six months with the last one being two months ago.
without central contracts i think we wouldn't have seen much of mark wood at all.
That's not what Wood says though and I genuinely believe that he would have taken every opportunity to play for England. With central contracts we have seen next to nothing of Archer. No Tests, 4 T20s and 3 ODIs in two and a half years during which time he has played twice as many matches for other teams. Players have been selected for more many matches in those 30 months that weren't on central contracts. Ollie Robinson will only play for his county if he needs to get some match time in but is still not guaranteed to be fit for Test cricket.
Central contracts provide a massive guaranteed income for a player but offer no guaranteed allegiance to England whatsoever. Last year, instead of getting his knee sorted out with an operation, Stokes opted to go to the IPL and sat and ended up sitting watching the vast majority of matches. As a result, he still hasn't been able to bowl. Now, when he has zero chance of getting an IPL contract, he might miss the Indian Test series to have that operation. Yet India don't allow their players to play in any other competitions apart from those linked to their franchises. But then they have the IPL and we have incentive of The Hundred to offer our players.
Sure, but do you really think wood's body would cope with finishing a test match on the monday and rocking up for a championship match on tuesday/wednesday? Part of the reason behind us not having any genuine fast bowlers in the 90s is the lack of central contracts.
How does a central contract help this situation? Equally, Ollie Robinson is centrally contracted but only plays a dozen games a year at most, has made just three appearances for Sussex and three for England in the last six months with the last one being two months ago.
without central contracts i think we wouldn't have seen much of mark wood at all.
That's not what Wood says though and I genuinely believe that he would have taken every opportunity to play for England. With central contracts we have seen next to nothing of Archer. No Tests, 4 T20s and 3 ODIs in two and a half years during which time he has played twice as many matches for other teams. Players have been selected for more many matches in those 30 months that weren't on central contracts. Ollie Robinson will only play for his county if he needs to get some match time in but is still not guaranteed to be fit for Test cricket.
Central contracts provide a massive guaranteed income for a player but offer no guaranteed allegiance to England whatsoever. Last year, instead of getting his knee sorted out with an operation, Stokes opted to go to the IPL and sat and ended up sitting watching the vast majority of matches. As a result, he still hasn't been able to bowl. Now, when he has zero chance of getting an IPL contract, he might miss the Indian Test series to have that operation. Yet India don't allow their players to play in any other competitions apart from those linked to their franchises. But then they have the IPL and we have incentive of The Hundred to offer our players.
Sure, but do you really think wood's body would cope with finishing a test match on the monday and rocking up for a championship match on tuesday/wednesday? Part of the reason behind us not having any genuine fast bowlers in the 90s is the lack of central contracts.
Matches played by the main three Australian quicks in the last 12 months:
Cummins - 28 Starc - 27 Hazlewood -25
I've said that I believe the reason why we have so many injuries to our quicks is because they don't play enough matches - as a result they have any number of big gaps between stints of matches which means that their bodies are constantly being wound up and down again. Robinson has played, by comparison, 12 games for England and Sussex in total in the last 12 months and I believe that in at least a couple of those he has had to cry off in the middle of matches injured - remember those words of Jon Lewis regarding his fitness? Robinson is months younger than Cummins and has played 172 career matches while the latter has had 477 games.
Yet Robinson collects a central contract worth a basic £650,000 while Brook gets an incremental one worth £66,000 for playing four times as many games for England. How is that fair and how does that encourage Brook, combined with not being being for the WC, not to take all the franchises on offer?
Number of matches played in last 12 months for England of the centrally contracted players shown below - note that Brook, who is only on an incremental contract of £66,000, has played the equal most times (36) for England in the last 12 months (that stat alone makes it even more ridiculous that he isn't in the WC squad) but Foakes who made just 3 appearances was guaranteed anything up to ten times that by virtue of his central contract:
Number of matches played in last 12 months for England of the centrally contracted players shown below - note that Brook, who is only on an incremental contract of £66,000, has played the equal most times (36) for England in the last 12 months (that stat alone makes it even more ridiculous that he isn't in the WC squad) but Foakes who made just 3 appearances was guaranteed anything up to ten times that by virtue of his central contract:
Why does the number of T20 and Test matches he has played effect the selection for the 50 over world cup?
I agree he should be in the squad BTW.
The real problem is how few ODIs there have been in the last two years. That's an all team problem, not an England one.
The series in Australia started while most of our side were still pussed from winning the T20 trophy.
We play so few games now that Roy is a shoe in to be dropped despite scoreline 100s in 2 of his last six ODIs. Its mental.
I think that it's a reasonable assumption to make that if a player can dominate at the speed and record the scores Brook has in both Test and T20 then he can do it in 50 over cricket. I totally agree that we play too few 50 over games but, there again, when the domestic competition is treated as a 2nd XI tournament I'm not sure that we should be that surprised. And it's the reason that Brook has only ever played 19 club or country 50 over matches. One hundred balls is more important than 300 balls to the ECB.
Number of matches played in last 12 months for England of the centrally contracted players shown below - note that Brook, who is only on an incremental contract of £66,000, has played the equal most times (36) for England in the last 12 months (that stat alone makes it even more ridiculous that he isn't in the WC squad) but Foakes who made just 3 appearances was guaranteed anything up to ten times that by virtue of his central contract:
Why does the number of T20 and Test matches he has played effect the selection for the 50 over world cup?
I agree he should be in the squad BTW.
The real problem is how few ODIs there have been in the last two years. That's an all team problem, not an England one.
The series in Australia started while most of our side were still pussed from winning the T20 trophy.
We play so few games now that Roy is a shoe in to be dropped despite scoreline 100s in 2 of his last six ODIs. Its mental.
I think that it's a reasonable assumption to make that if a player can dominate at the speed and record the scores Brook has in both Test and T20 then he can do it in 50 over cricket. I totally agree that we play too few 50 over games but, there again, when the domestic competition is treated as a 2nd XI tournament I'm not sure that we should be that surprised. And it's the reason that Brook has only ever played 19 club or country 50 over matches. One hundred balls is more important than 300 balls to the ECB.
All the other countries haven't been playing ODIs either, you can't really blame the ECB for that?
So not only haven't we given Brooke a chance to establish himself in the team, we haven't given Roy or Mallan a chance to play themselves out if it either. Like I said Roy scored 2 100s in his last 6 ODIs.
Number of matches played in last 12 months for England of the centrally contracted players shown below - note that Brook, who is only on an incremental contract of £66,000, has played the equal most times (36) for England in the last 12 months (that stat alone makes it even more ridiculous that he isn't in the WC squad) but Foakes who made just 3 appearances was guaranteed anything up to ten times that by virtue of his central contract:
Why does the number of T20 and Test matches he has played effect the selection for the 50 over world cup?
I agree he should be in the squad BTW.
The real problem is how few ODIs there have been in the last two years. That's an all team problem, not an England one.
The series in Australia started while most of our side were still pussed from winning the T20 trophy.
We play so few games now that Roy is a shoe in to be dropped despite scoreline 100s in 2 of his last six ODIs. Its mental.
I think that it's a reasonable assumption to make that if a player can dominate at the speed and record the scores Brook has in both Test and T20 then he can do it in 50 over cricket. I totally agree that we play too few 50 over games but, there again, when the domestic competition is treated as a 2nd XI tournament I'm not sure that we should be that surprised. And it's the reason that Brook has only ever played 19 club or country 50 over matches. One hundred balls is more important than 300 balls to the ECB.
All the other countries haven't been playing ODIs either, you can't really blame the ECB for that?
So not only haven't we given Brooke a chance to establish himself in the team, we haven't given Roy or Mallan a chance to play themselves out if it either. Like I said Roy scored 2 100s in his last 6 ODIs.
The point I was making is that we have always had a perfectly good 50 over domestic competition to ground those players but because of The Hundred the England batsmen can't even play in that hence Brook only having batted 19 times in that form of the game. When will Brook ever play more 50 over games all the time that is happening? Shupman Gill is the same age as Brook - he's batted 83 times in 50 over games and 29 times in ODIs. Equally, the Aussies have the 50 over Marsh Cup - they don't put on another domestic comp to usurp that.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xlCBKtxPKtk
No Tests for ages, so he hardly needs rest, why wasn't he playing in the 50 over competition and the CC match this week?
When Robinson is resting, you suspect he "enjoys himself"... He's actually who needs to be playing to keep himself fit.
That's not what Wood says though and I genuinely believe that he would have taken every opportunity to play for England. With central contracts we have seen next to nothing of Archer. No Tests, 4 T20s and 3 ODIs in two and a half years during which time he has played twice as many matches for other teams. Players have been selected for more many matches in those 30 months that weren't on central contracts. Ollie Robinson will only play for his county if he needs to get some match time in but is still not guaranteed to be fit for Test cricket.
Central contracts provide a massive guaranteed income for a player but offer no guaranteed allegiance to England whatsoever. Last year, instead of getting his knee sorted out with an operation, Stokes opted to go to the IPL and sat and ended up sitting watching the vast majority of matches. As a result, he still hasn't been able to bowl. Now, when he has zero chance of getting an IPL contract, he might miss the Indian Test series to have that operation. Yet India don't allow their players to play in any other competitions apart from those linked to their franchises. But then they have the IPL and we have incentive of The Hundred to offer our players.
Because Stokes as a genuine all-rounder gives the side proper ballance.
Stokes not being able to bowl means we are always either one batsmen or one bowler short depending on the line up.
Moeen - 36
Curran - 28
Buttler - 24
Duckett - 23
Woakes - 22
Stokes - 21
Wood - 17
Livingstone - 12
Crawley - 11
Root - 11
Bairstow - 10
Broad - 9
Anderson - 8
Robinson - 8
Archer - 7
Pope - 7
Leach - 6
Foakes - 3
I expect them to both play some part in this 4 game series.
All to play for selection wise.
Cummins - 28
Starc - 27
Hazlewood -25
I've said that I believe the reason why we have so many injuries to our quicks is because they don't play enough matches - as a result they have any number of big gaps between stints of matches which means that their bodies are constantly being wound up and down again. Robinson has played, by comparison, 12 games for England and Sussex in total in the last 12 months and I believe that in at least a couple of those he has had to cry off in the middle of matches injured - remember those words of Jon Lewis regarding his fitness? Robinson is months younger than Cummins and has played 172 career matches while the latter has had 477 games.
Yet Robinson collects a central contract worth a basic £650,000 while Brook gets an incremental one worth £66,000 for playing four times as many games for England. How is that fair and how does that encourage Brook, combined with not being being for the WC, not to take all the franchises on offer?
I agree he should be in the squad BTW.
The real problem is how few ODIs there have been in the last two years. That's an all team problem, not an England one.
The series in Australia started while most of our side were still pussed from winning the T20 trophy.
We play so few games now that Roy is a shoe in to be dropped despite scoreline 100s in 2 of his last six ODIs. Its mental.
So not only haven't we given Brooke a chance to establish himself in the team, we haven't given Roy or Mallan a chance to play themselves out if it either. Like I said Roy scored 2 100s in his last 6 ODIs.