England name central contracts for the next 12 months - Vaughan included?!?!?

[bryce]

Yeah, Wright basically plays as both a spare batsman and a spare bowler, he doesn't play much a role in the side at all

 

[gettingbetter]

NO hoggard & Simon Jones

I'm going to put this as mildly as possible, but YTF would Jones get a contract?

 

[pup11]

I'm going to put this as mildly as possible, but YTF would Jones get a contract?

Maybe itduzz feels that the least ECB could do for him, for having helped England win the Ashes in 2005.

 

[Richard]

TBH, i think he would do a much better job then Wright, Mascarenhas has proved that he can bat pretty well lower down the order and he can also bowl decent overs too, so he can be a pretty handy player to have in Odi cricket.

As I've said a good few times though - Mascarenhas may be potentially a far better bowler than Wright (and who knows - maybe even a better late-innings slogger too) but he's not bowled well at all this season. And I'm happy for him to be out of the side because of that - I don't want him playing ODIs if he's not bowling well, as it's only going to damage his long-term prospects.

 

[Craig]

Luke Wright looks like somebody who only enjoy's a flat pitch and a small ground. Well when I saw him play in a few OD games last year.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Central Contract

James Anderson
Ian Bell
Stuart Broad
Paul Collingwood
Alastair Cook
Andrew Flintoff
Stephen Harmison
Monty Panesar
Kevin Pietersen
Ryan Sidebottom
Andrew Strauss
Michael Vaughan

Incremental contract

Tim Ambrose
Ravi Bopara
Samit Patel
Matt Prior
Owais Shah
Graeme Swann
Luke Wright

The incremental contracts are one-off payments to supplement the county contracts of fringe players. Basically seem to be a halfway house to placate the fringe players of the squad, especially players of only one form of the game.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom Vaughan getting a full 12 month central contract. Geoff Miller the head selector in the press conference seemed to basically guarantee him being taken on the winter tours too, saying his form for Yorks before the seasons end isn't that important in the decision on whether he tours or not! Seems crazy to me.

Thought I'd dig this up as it occured to me that only six of our current XI actually have central contracts and two don't even have incremenatals.

Pretty dire strike rate you'd have to say and doesn't speak well of our long term selectorial goals. Willing to bet Bresnan, Onions & Amjad hardly blips on the radar back when contracts were awarded.

No seamers given incremental contracts actually (well, real seamers, all due respect to Wright), which is surely a bit short sighted given the fitness history of a few of our quicks.

 

[superkingdave]

Well you'd think if everyone was fit Flintoff and Sidebottom would be in for Onions and Bresnan which would give you 8 full contracts and 3 incremental. Of course Sidebottom may never come back to what he was last year but at the time his contract was obviously fully justified. Bell and Panesar are still rightly or wrongly there or thereabouts and their positions are taken by incremental players. Vaughan obviously an abberration and Harmison has dropped off.

Would argue that the inclusion of Vaughan and the lack of an seamers on incrementals are the only poor calls. (and Luke Wright). Its also possible that if he'd been judged fit enough, Patel would have been playing in this test match instead of Bresnan (I heard a comment that I think it was Geoff Miller had said they wanted Patel in this match but of course his fitness put the kybosh on that)

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm 99% sure it was Andy Flower who said that, in the pre-game Sky interview.

 

[oitoitoi]

Central contracts need to be abolished in their current form, the england players have far too much power and are taking the p*ss, the ECB needs to put it's foot down. It should be IPL or central contract, not both. They should also be awarded on a 6 month basis, only the most succesful sides should be able to maintain the same personnel over a 12 month period, England is not a successful side and players are in and out frequently. 5 of those fully contracted are nowhere near the test side now and rightfully so. Why the hell has Luke Wright got an incremental contract??? Surely Samit Patel has lost his for being fat? Giving Broad a central contract was foolishly premature, he was an ideal candidate for an incremental contract. I've begun thinking that Broad is someone who just fits the PR image of an International Cricketer, he makes a good poster boy for the ECB despite delivering some very ordinary results in test cricket. It's actually quite suprising that there haven't been any serious questions over his test place in the press, he seems to be a certainty on the team sheet ahead of other more effective and proven candidates, and surely after seeing his innings in this test we can all agree that he is not yet close to being an all rounder.

 

[Uppercut]

Well if you look at the ODI and test series in the West Indies combined, Broad was probably their best player. His place was called into question plenty by lots of us before the beginning of that tour- in actual fact England were only resorting to playing him because the balance of the team meant they needed some kind of batting at 8. But if they kept playing him then why would they consider dropping him now that he's performing?

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, I don't think you can question Broad's central contract given his status in both teams. You can question that status by all means, but the contracts should be based on the selectors' plans.

 

[oitoitoi]

Well if you look at the ODI and test series in the West Indies combined, Broad was probably their best player. His place was called into question plenty by lots of us before the beginning of that tour- in actual fact England were only resorting to playing him because the balance of the team meant they needed some kind of batting at 8. But if they kept playing him then why would they consider dropping him now that he's performing?

OK Uppercut, this is the difference between Australian and English selectors, yeah he's performing now in helpful conditions (one good bowling performance in 4 tests in the Windies isn't really good enough for a test bowler regardless of surfaces) but do you think he'll trouble the Australians and other top sides? He doesn't have the swing, accuracy or pace to trouble the best and he hasn't really improved any of those significantly since coming into the side, he's merely decent in all those departments. You can't learn how to bowl in test cricket, he needs to go back to CC for a while IMHO. How many bowlers have gone on to great things starting with a record like his? Instead of resting on their laurels and then getting shocked at his inadequacy later on they have to take more initiative and find someone who will (there are some others with a better chance than broad, and his batting is very overrated), though I'm loathe to say it, someone like Mahmood might be better as a strike bowler for all condtions, but he needs a chance and it's series like these where you have the chance to try them. England will gain nothing from this series otherwise except maybe Bopara getting a place.

 

[Pheobe]

How many bowlers have averaged 40 after 16 test matches and went on to become spearheads for their team?

 

[oitoitoi]

How many bowlers have averaged 40 after 16 test matches and went on to become spearheads for their team?

Indeed, I'm waiting for a stats person to tell me.

 

[superkingdave]

How many bowlers have averaged 40 after 16 test matches and went on to become spearheads for their team?

Andrew Flintoff? took till his 37th test before it came below 40

 

[Pheobe]

Andrew Flintoff? took till his 37th test before it came below 40

Shocking. But for all purposes, Flintoff was probably spearhead for the brief time between 2004 to 2005. If English selectors are making this guy to become a bowler like Flintoff, then they are doing nothing to add to the future of English cricket.

 

[GIMH]

 

[Jarquis]

Andrew Flintoff? took till his 37th test before it came below 40

Wasn't selected for bowling at the start of his career though was he?

 

[oitoitoi]

Shocking. But for all purposes, Flintoff was probably spearhead for the brief time between 2004 to 2005. If English selectors are making this guy to become a bowler like Flintoff, then they are doing nothing to add to the future of English cricket.

AWTA, also Flintoff had better raw materials than Broad does, better pace, bounce, not to mention his batting ability back then. Broad is a very different type of bowler. IMO he's been picked on the showing of his bowling before he changed his action to more front on. Back then he swung the ball a lot more, though was obviously more injury prone. Since going front on, he's looked fairly innocuous.

 

[FBU]

It will be interesting to see who gets a contract in September especially with a new coach and captain. Will they still have 12.

Since the last contract
Not at present in the team

Ian Bell - named in the ODI squad
3 Tests 81 runs at 16.20
4 ODIs 84 runs at 21.00

Stephen Harmison - omitted from all squads
3 Tests 5 wickets at 47.40 econ 3.13 s/r 90.8
7 ODIs 4 wickets at 78.50 econ 6.03 s/r 78.0

Monty Panesar - only plays Tests
5 Tests 11 wickets at 52.09 econ 3.03 s/r 103.0

Ryan Sidebottom- named in both ODI and 20/20 squads
3 Tests 1 wicket at 181.00 econ 3.06 s/r 354.0
0 ODIs or 20/20s

Michael Vaughan - likely to be dropped from Yorkshire if he doesn't get some runs soon.
0 Tests, ODIs or 20/20s

Flintoff 5 Tests 151 runs at 21.57 12 wickets at 29.75
8 ODIs 117 runs at 16.71 10 wickets at 30.60