Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Durhamfootman wrote:that's how skint they are, so my guess is that their international players earn very limited money playing for their country compared to players from the big 3 nations

If the options presented are to earn a pittance playing international cricket or signing a 3 year deal as a kolpak earning 100K a year for Hampshire (say) then why wouldn't they? It was the system that was putting them in that position imo

doesn't make them lying money grabbers

meanwhile England players earn literally millions playing international cricket (and some earn millions playing hardly any cricket at all) and then still want to go to the IPL to earn more..... and I don't blame them either. It's a short career, and if the ECB are so weak they're afraid to put their foot down, then why wouldn't they want it all?

mikesiva wrote:Surprise surprise, he gets selected! So, all that talk about selection policies sidelining him was rubbish, it seems

Indeed, all the talk about selection policy is rubbish, because Roussow never mentioned it and it has nothing to do with the decision. He quit with a world class T20I record and a very good ODI record that was trending up after a wonder series vs Australia where he top scored over a long ODI series.... South Africa were desperate to keep him and tried in vain to ask him to reconsider.

Now I might be wrong, but that just makes him an economic migrant.... like me, and er.... dare I say if my belief is right, just like you.....

I wonder how many people would turn down a better future for themselves and their family based on some rubbish notion of loyalty....loyalty dont pay the bills. Fair play to him for exploiting his talents for the most reward possible.... and fair play for him deciding to change his mind.

Id support any player doing what he did.

just to reinforce my point about how little money there is in international cricket outside the big 3, in the news today....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/62487424

Trent Boult has been released from his NZ central contract to spend more time with his family and to play in domestic leagues around the world. NZ, like SA, are also skint and can't afford to pay the sort of money that allows them to dictate to players what they can and can't do or where they can and can't play. He earns something fairly piddling playing for NZ, but picked up about £800K at the last IPL.

Durhamfootman wrote: Trent Boult has been released from his NZ central contract to spend more time with his family and to play in domestic leagues around the world. NZ, like SA, are also skint and can't afford to pay the sort of money that allows them to dictate to players what they can and can't do or where they can and can't play. He earns something fairly piddling playing for NZ, but picked up about £800K at the last IPL.

His all format NZ contract is worth only £200,000, and its key to note that is the maximum possible without the captaincy bonus. Players like Wagner who only play one format earn about £40,000 a year, which is frankly an insult for a world class performer in the sport, and actually less than the average county player earns (which is said to be about £50,000 a year). Fair to say a player of Boult's quality could play 3 months of CC a year and earn better, while also playing all the T20 leagues.

Of course, its not great for the game, but you cant blame the players for doing it. You, I, everyone... probably do the same. Its the new reality....

To put Wagner's wage into perspective, he earns below the pure average wage in NZ by some distance, and thats before you consider relative industries and qualifications (a world renowned operator in any other industry would expect way over average based on qualifications). Minimum wage based on a full time contract and legal holiday premium is about 54,000NZD a year, and the living wage is slightly higher than that. Wagner earns 85,000....

The equivalent in the UK comparing his wage to the minimum salary means he earns about £12.10 an hour. If we were to consider the fact his work means he is technically required to travel for months on end working, the real working hours to wage here is pretty tragic. Many educated NZ players would be better off getting an office job and earning better money with far less stress and hours involved.

Of course, its difficult to pin point earnings/cost of living (which is higher in NZ but the average wage is also higher) in comparison, but in short, these types of players are earning peanuts for the type of risks and status they have.

Players who have played for years for NZ have paid their dues over and over, and criticizing them for wanting more financial gains or returns is just madness. These players deserve to be paid as their quality defines in an open global market, so fair play to any of them that do so.

A cricket career also can end at any point. For players who have no other academic qualifications, this is not money that keeps you going into later life, its money that is barely capable of carving out things like owning a simple house in the big cities.

Obviously in reality, a quality player will get match fees/sponsorships etc, but that is all factor dependant (fitness, form, etc).... and cant really be classed as a guaranteed earning.

I had heard a figure of 40k a year quoted for NZ players, but I was reluctant to cite it because I wasn't sure if it was correct. It seemed too small for me to have any confidence in it, so I'm pleased you've confirmed it

I'm sure that cricket boards like NZ and SA would love to stop their players going to so many T20 leagues, so they could focus on getting them to prioritise their country, but the reality is if they were to try, the players would up sticks and go. And so would I. 40k a year playing test cricket -v- 250k for 2 months at the IPL

Dan Lawrence scored a superb 97 to help the Lions end day two with 279/3.

He demonstrated his skill with spin again, and with the Pakistan tour approaching, it was a good moment to catch the eye – especially with Rob Key in attendance.

England Lions would have been frustrated with how long it took for them to shut down the South Africans innings, The South African tail added another 151 despite taking a wicket early but their were promising signs from all English batters thus far.

In a strange turn of events, England put on 672 and the South African 'bowler' with the most credit to their name is Aiden Markram who got career best figures of 6-91.

It brings up some important issues regarding South Africa's depth in fast bowling and how much they rely on their top three bowlers.

The Professor wrote:In a strange turn of events, England put on 672 and the South African 'bowler' with the most credit to their name is Aiden Markram who got career best figures of 6-91.

It brings up some important issues regarding South Africa's depth in fast bowling and how much they rely on their top three bowlers.

Also might say something about the pitch ! Glad I'm not bowling on it

alfie wrote: Also might say something about the pitch ! Glad I'm not bowling on it

Of course, the natural inclination is to see the score and assume its a total pancake .... weirdly though, all of South Africa's runs came from the tail, and their top order has done nothing in both innings. So maybe there is a case for it being worse than on paper, but I doubt it.

One thing that sticks out is England's striking rate, which is insanely high for a score of over 650 (just a shade under a run a ball)..... trying to benchmark it on the all time is impossible, but I would have to guess it approaches a record for quickest 500-600 runs scored in FC games.

The Australian invincibles own the record for most runs in a single FC day (721) but that was at a slower SR. Lara's 501 got the team to 800 slightly quicker, but he accelerated throughout the innings and I cant find anything about the breakdown of team 100s other than to suggest at 418* the team were 636 off 112 overs, which is about level. All the top FC scores (800 plus) are lower according to the lists I can find.

It might not be the record, but its certainly approaching all time hitting in FC history for a score that size.

Despite being met with quizzical looks on his call up and looking at times......raw, Sam Conners repaid the faith the system has shown in him with 4-25 as the Lions systematically broke down a weary looking South African side.

He looked both economical and incisive against the South African tail which, as has been said above, are no slouches with the bat.

I won't read too much into a 12 a side warm up match ; but SA might feel they could do with a couple more practice games before the Test , going by these scores ! OK I know their main pace men didn't play ; but still...

When I saw the first innings scores it occurred to me that the same ball softening after forty overs that affected the Tests was a big factor (SA went from 129/6 to 400 , Lions an admittedly healthy 223/3 to 672) ; but it doesn't seem to have done much for SA in their second knock. Maybe they had lost interest by then. Sam Connors seems to have had a very mixed experience : going round the park at 5 plus per over first innings , then 4/25 in the second - although mostly tail.

Robinson had a nice workout leading up to the Test. Wonder how he will recover from his exertions ; and will he get in the XI for Lord's ? Not sure what happened to Overton but I note he didn't finish his last over so presumably an injury of some sort ...the England fast bowlers' curse strikes again ?

I was there on Day Two and Conners looked .......sub-optimal