Flintoff having knee surgery...

[Sanz]

So it seem CW opinion goes like this...

2003-04 - Freddy is overrated
2005-06 - Freddy is awesome, people who said he was overrated admitted they were wrong.
2006-07 onwards - Freddy is overrated again

No doubt he's far from a great, and only had a few years of consistency, but surely people are smart enough to see that injuries had a part (at least with the ball)?

With the bat, I just think he didn't apply himself as much as he should have, and his career stats will show that.

Yeah remember reading a discussion where people claimed that Freddie was a better allrounder than Botham.

 

[four_or_six]

Does anyone honestly believe the ECB has the slightest right to tell a player he is not allowed to go and play in the IPL if he's offered a collossal pay-packet?

Anyone whose bosses tell them to do that has 100% right to tell 'em to get stuffed. England cricket needs Andrew Flintoff far more than he needs the ECB's contracts.

Some people forget that cricketers are actually humans as well and have every right to put their own earnings ahead of the team. There are some utterly ridiculous expectations flying around, as Jacob Oram mentioned:

I don't think you can say the ECB should say Flintoff can't go. However, Flintoff himself could have decided not to go (like Ponting, for example). I don't think it's fair to compare him with Oram, I would imagine compared to Oram, Flintoff is absolutely loaded.

It also may have been a bad financial decision from Flintoff if he turns out to miss the Ashes, it was commented in the press that he earnt a lot more than the $750000ish that he got from the IPL in endorsments etc. off the back of his performance in the last Ashes.

 

[Richard]

Hmmm, one can argue that your viewpoint is just the same as mine.

Isn't being unable to apply yourself (getting caught in the deep in small chases, chasing wide ones when your team needs you to grind and dig deep) basically saying you're not as good a batsman as you would be if you were able to do that? Temperament and clever batting makes the batsman just like technique and skill does.

Generally, I think of "application" as something which is a conscious, willing decision - the batsman is prepared to apply himself, or he isn't. It's not like shot-selection, which can only be honed to some degree - a good amount of it is instinct, which is why Shahid Afridi will never be any good and why Graham Gooch and Geoff Boycott could be so good with so few strokes.

It depends how you view it.

 

[rivera213]

Does anyone honestly believe the ECB has the slightest right to tell a player he is not allowed to go and play in the IPL if he's offered a collossal pay-packet?

Yes, since that's the whole point of central contracts. They are his main employer and can tell him exactly what and what not to. It's bound to be in his contract which was almost certainly read and re-read by a solicitor for Andrew Flintoff.

Flintoff couldn't say **** to the ECB had they stopped him going to SA and even if this injury would've happened, it shows they have some control over their players.

 

[rivera213]

Yeah remember reading a discussion where people claimed that Freddie was a better allrounder than Botham.

 

[GIMH]

Yes, since that's the whole point of central contracts. They are his main employer and can tell him exactly what and what not to. It's bound to be in his contract which was almost certainly read and re-read by a solicitor for Andrew Flintoff.

Flintoff couldn't say **** to the ECB had they stopped him going to SA and even if this injury would've happened, it shows they have some control over their players.

Pretty sure no contracts were signed until the ECB gave the players the green light to play IPL

 

[rivera213]

Pretty sure no contracts were signed until the ECB gave the players the green light to play IPL

There'd still be something written in the contract which allowed the ECB to stop players going to the IPL if they wanted.

 

[Richard]

Yes, since that's the whole point of central contracts. They are his main employer and can tell him exactly what and what not to. It's bound to be in his contract which was almost certainly read and re-read by a solicitor for Andrew Flintoff.

Flintoff couldn't say **** to the ECB had they stopped him going to SA and even if this injury would've happened, it shows they have some control over their players.

If so, Flintoff would have every right to refuse to sign such a ridiculous contract. No-one has a right to limit the earnings of an employee of theirs.

 

[Richard]

Yeah remember reading a discussion where people claimed that Freddie was a better allrounder than Botham.

This, it should be remembered, was in September-October 2005 sort of time, when Flintoff's excellence was in full swing and everyone was presuming he was going to continue in that vein for a number of years.

IE, all that can be deduced is that while one player's career is fully in motion and after his greatest success has just happened is not a remotely good time to compare him to anyone else.

 

[Burgey]

If so, Flintoff would have every right to refuse to sign such a ridiculous contract. No-one has a right to limit the earnings of an employee of theirs.

Yes they do.

 

[four_or_six]

If so, Flintoff would have every right to refuse to sign such a ridiculous contract. No-one has a right to limit the earnings of an employee of theirs.

I'm sure that's not true. My contract says I'm not allowed to do another paid job without my employers consent. I expect this is so you don't work all night and come in knackered and be no use to them.

 

[Richard]

That's fair enough, of course, but Flintoff's and your situation are hardly analogous. Flintoff isn't doing another job, he's doing the same job - ie, playing cricket. Only difference is who his paycheque is coming from.

As I say - if the ECB tried to stop Flintoff from playing the IPL then he'd have every right to say, well then, I'll just take the IPL over you thanks very much.

The ECB must accommodate the IPL if it is to retain the loyalty of top-line staff. Simple as. If it tries to stop players from earning in the IPL, it will lose them.

 

[Richard]

Yes they do.

How so? You can't force someone to sign a new contract.

(Can you?)

 

[four_or_six]

How so? You can't force someone to sign a new contract.

(Can you?)

Who said anything about forcing? I thought the whole point of the central contracts originally were that the ECB could control how much cricket the players were playing, and when.

 

[GIMH]

I doubt Flintoff would have turned his back on England if he had been told he couldn't play in the IPL. However, he would have been pissed off and keeping your employees happy is fundamental to success in any business, so yeah, I pretty much agree with you

 

[four_or_six]

I doubt Flintoff would have turned his back on England if he had been told he couldn't play in the IPL. However, he would have been pissed off and keeping your employees happy is fundamental to success in any business, so yeah, I pretty much agree with you

Which comes back to the whole thing that Flintoff, who is loaded, should have just given it a miss this year of his own accord, like Ponting/Johnson/Hussey/Broad/Anderson etc.

Grrr. And that's it, I'm going to stop complaining about him now. It's annoying me more.

 

[Richard]

Who said anything about forcing? I thought the whole point of the central contracts originally were that the ECB could control how much cricket the players were playing, and when.

Yup. And thus, if a player isn't happy about having how much cricket he plays (and, more significantly, doesn't play) controlled he has every right to not sign said central contract.

So thus, the ECB would do best to allow the players to play in cricket they want to play if they want to get them to sign said contracts.

 

[Furball]

Who said anything about forcing? I thought the whole point of the central contracts originally were that the ECB could control how much cricket the players were playing, and when.

yes, but with the advent of the IPL, the ECB can't prevent their players playing in it.

If the choice is between an ECB central contract worth c. £100,000 a year, or a 6 week stint in the IPL for Chennai Superkings worth $1.55m, then which deal to sign is a no-brainer.

Besides, not having a central contract wouldn't prevent players from playing for England.

 

[rivera213]

If so, Flintoff would have every right to refuse to sign such a ridiculous contract. No-one has a right to limit the earnings of an employee of theirs.

He could refuse if he wants but then the ECB would be within their right to say "**** off Andrew, you aren't playing for England again".

Then we'd see how much he cares about playing for England.

Also, £500k per year doing the thing you love is ridiculous money anyway. In the economic climate of today, people losing their jobs and subsequently their homes due to lack of work, he should be lucky he has that option.

People would settle for £5k per year doing the thing they hate most at the moment. I think sportsmen and women need to realize this fact.

This, it should be remembered, was in September-October 2005 sort of time, when Flintoff's excellence was in full swing and everyone was presuming he was going to continue in that vein for a number of years.

IE, all that can be deduced is that while one player's career is fully in motion and after his greatest success has just happened is not a remotely good time to compare him to anyone else.

He'd have had to continue that level of excellence til 2010 for him to even be considered up there with Both.

Even though he was awesome in that series and I was as big a fan of his as anyone else, I knew Botham was better and never thought nor said anything to the contrary. I did hope he'd continue that form into the return Ashes. The captaincy wasn't a good move (eerily similar to Botham's time as captain) and that must've affected his form.

 

[rivera213]

yes, but with the advent of the IPL, the ECB can't prevent their players playing in it.

If the choice is between an ECB central contract worth c. £100,000 a year, or a 6 week stint in the IPL for Chennai Superkings worth $1.55m, then which deal to sign is a no-brainer.

Besides, not having a central contract wouldn't prevent players from playing for England.

No professional sportsman should pick money over their country, especially when the central contract is nearer to half a million for Flintoff not the measly £100k you think it is (exact figures for 2009 haven't been announced but the salary in 2006 was up to £400,000 so add inflation and lack of recession for sportsmen and you're looking at £500,000+ for Flintoof, Pietersen etc).

Nice article from Nasser: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-1173295/ECB-wimps-end-contract-farce.html