England Cricket 2021 (excluding Ashes)

Greater opportunity outside of international cricket, through franchised T20 leagues, means the players hold the whip hand. Bizarrely, the ECB has allowed a situation where it, as the employer, has washed its hands of its contracted players for two months of the year during the Indian Premier League (which became longer than two months this year, with players unavailable for the New Zealand series because of it). It has conceded this because it fears the consequences if it takes on the players. Players have new options beyond international cricket.

In its decision-making this week, the ECB has been weak beyond measure. When the journalist Peter Oborne went on television on Tuesday to eviscerate its decision on Pakistan, he mocked the chairman, Watmore, with the moniker “Invisible Ian”. Watmore has been missing in action, nowhere to be seen, when the decision to abandon Pakistan needed to be explained. Hiding behind a poorly drafted press release is not good enough.

Player power and ECB board weakness were the driving forces behind England’s aborted tour to South Africa last winter, as they have been here. It was reported in The Guardian recently, that during the discussions around the South Africa issue, the chief-executive, Tom Harrison, who has more feel for the game than most in his organisation, sent Ashley Giles, the director of cricket, an email asking him who exactly was running the show. It is a pertinent question to be asking again this week.

Perhaps the time is ripe to take away central contracts as they have become "retainers" that aren't worth the paper they are written on. By definition the better players will be more in demand and consequently will request that they miss England tours because of fatigue. Look at, for example, Jason Roy. He hasn't played a single game for the Sunrisers and once again was sat on the bench yesterday despite the fact that Bairstow hasn't gone out for the second half of the comp.

Well take away their cushy central contract and pay them on a "pay per game" plus a lump sum for being available for each series. There again, the ECB have rather made a rod for their own back with The Hundred. How embarrassing for them when a player says that they knock England back because they might earn more playing for their franchise?

The paying public has to pay top whack to watch England. That's bad enough but to then have to watch a second string because players are fatigued is a joke and is short changing them. Who knows? They might actually pass on the saving to those that want to purchase tickets!

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

The bowler bowls the ball and the batter edges it in the direction of the thirder who catches it but sustains an injury in doing so and leaves the field to be replaced by a 12th person. A nightwatcher is sent in who will, as the batters crossed, have to face the Chinaperson at the other end. No runs are scored off the next set of six/five/ten (delete as applicable) balls.

NB I have used the term "balls" even though it could be reasonably argued that this isn't gender neutral. Currently awaiting clarification on this point from the ECB.

What word would you use, instead of batsman, to describe, say, Tammy Beaumont, when she's batting for England?