nzfan
International Vice-Captain
Discriminating based on age is also a sort of discrimination which nzc is very guilty of.If you give it too a young bloke, then they'll just get rich early, get burnt-out early, retire early. Like Boult.
Anyway, these are rolling 1 year contracts, not talking a 5 year deal to lock in an exciting young talent to Manchester Utd etc.
It absolutely should go to the next most deserving talent for the playing mix they need, probably Neesh. To give an option to someone on a near-Boult like situation (minus the young family, possibly)
Giving it to Sears, Allen or Ravindra would probably make absolutely no difference. Actually, I say that but Allen with T20s and Sears with Law have other high earning options. Ravindra is more a 'prisoner' of having to do the hard yards. So whether he earns 80k or 150k will make no difference to what he does over the next 2 years. How much cricket he plays. Considering there is a higher earning contract not far away anyway without needing to 'favour youth'.
But honestly, who would chose Law 8 to 10 years earlier than required? 4 years of University would knock the naivity out that checking property contracts isn't actually as exciting as those episode of 'Suits' made it out to be.
If a player is good enough, he's good enough no matter what his age. Applies to a 18 year old as it does to a 38 year old. Why should a younger bloke earn less than what he deserves just because he's younger?
Rather then the age or money it's the playing opportunity I'm taking about. Pretty sure nzc will have Duffy or Tickener on contract list and give them more playing opportunities than they deserve. Meanwhile more deserving candidates get told wait up just because you've not come of age that nzc wants them to be.