Will this be the end of International Cricket?

[kingkallis]

This will be a game changer for world cricket and is massive news for the sport.

Apparently Jofra Archer is set to be offered a year-round, multi-million-pound deal by Mumbai Indians that would require the ECB to gain permission from the IPL franchise to pick him for England. Signing the deal will make the franchise the primary employer of the player, and ECB will have to seek a NOC from the franchise to let him play for England.

If it goes through then I am sure a lot of player will be poached by the T20 League Teams that way. Will it be an end of International Cricket?

 

[Aidan11]

Why would they offer one of these contracts to a player who is injury prone?

 

[Yeoman]

We had a similar thread discussion not too long ago. For someone with Archer’s recent injury record and likely future focus on T20, I would not be too concerned. Presumably he would remain available for global white ball tournaments while other international white ball series seem increasingly unimportant. More concerning for me was the earlier Trent Boult case, a fit player who would be first choice in test matches had he not declined a central contract.

 

[Nintendo]

We had a similar thread discussion not too long ago. For someone with Archer’s recent injury record and likely future focus on T20, I would not be too concerned. Presumably he would remain available for global white ball tournaments while other international white ball series seem increasingly unimportant. More concerning for me was the earlier Trent Boult case, a fit player who would be first choice in test matches had he not declined a central contract.

Boult is 33, has served nz cricket for over a decade and is getting to a point where most fast bowlers break down. He wants to spend more time with his kids, and franchise gig's pay more and give him that opportunity. I understand that it could set a precedent for younger players but I see nothing wrong with boult's decision in a vacuum.

It's not like boult said "I won't play this test despite being across the road." He's said multiple times in interview's he's willing to play, NZ chose not to play him and focus on "centrally contracted players", which lead to them picking a 31 year old, morally suspect, rapist in all but legal conviction journeyman with a FC bowling average north of 32 who was taking his wickets at 60 across the season and a bit of fc cricket he had played before that while there where plenty of younger, more fit bowlers ready to pick not named boult.

Frankly, I still think questions need to be asked about how NZ management handled that entire situation. If scotty K is your best option aside from boult for a one off (which he wasn't, FYI) then screw your "we are going to prioritize the centrally contracted players" stance, call boult.

 

[Ali TT]

At the moment he's not playing for England at all, so moving his salary over to Mumbai probably helps the ECB coffers a bit.

However, while not that problematic on their own, Archer and Boult might the trickle that precedes the flood.

 

[Socerer 01]

wake up babe new doompost about international cricket dropped

 

[trundler]

Boult is 33, has served nz cricket for over a decade and is getting to a point where most fast bowlers break down. He wants to spend more time with his kids, and franchise gig's pay more and give him that opportunity. I understand that it could set a precedent for younger players but I see nothing wrong with boult's decision in a vacuum.

It's not like boult said "I won't play this test despite being across the road." He's said multiple times in interview's he's willing to play, NZ chose not to play him and focus on "centrally contracted players", which lead to them picking a 31 year old, morally suspect, rapist in all but legal conviction journeyman with a FC bowling average north of 32 who was taking his wickets at 60 across the season and a bit of fc cricket he had played before that while there where plenty of younger, more fit bowlers ready to pick not named boult.

Frankly, I still think questions need to be asked about how NZ management handled that entire situation. If scotty K is your best option aside from boult for a one off (which he wasn't, FYI) then screw your "we are going to prioritize the centrally contracted players" stance, call boult.

Not picking a mercenary is absolutely the right call but shame NZ made a much, much bigger moral blunder when replacing Boult.

 

[Nintendo]

Not picking a mercenary is absolutely the right call but shame NZ made a much, much bigger moral blunder when replacing Boult.

100% get you, but I think if the choice is between a mercenary and the moral shitstorm that is picking scotty K, especially when he's done nothing to actually earn the call-up, the mercenary is the better call .

 

[ashley bach]

A temporary rough patch coming up perhaps but international cricket will survive.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Boult is 33, has served nz cricket for over a decade and is getting to a point where most fast bowlers break down. He wants to spend more time with his kids, and franchise gig's pay more and give him that opportunity. I understand that it could set a precedent for younger players but I see nothing wrong with boult's decision in a vacuum.

I've never really bought the spend more time with your kids and then jet to the UAE rather than play a few local games in NZ. I see that he's taken the kids with him to Dubai and India, which perhaps you have more latitude to do when you're in a private league, but I'm not sure that's sustainable for the kids when they hit school age.

 

[GotSpin]

I've never really bought the spend more time with your kids and then jet to the UAE rather than play a few local games in NZ. I see that he's taken the kids with him to Dubai and India, which perhaps you have more latitude to do when you're in a private league, but I'm not sure that's sustainable for the kids when they hit school age.

Yeah it’s always interesting to see players who are approaching retirement go on about spending more time at home with their family but they end up spending most of the year travelling for commentary or coaching gigs anyway

 

[GotSpin]

At the moment he's not playing for England at all, so moving his salary over to Mumbai probably helps the ECB coffers a bit.

ECB should have put it in the contract that he needs to pay them back if he doesn’t want to play for England

 

[Beamer]

I'll sound like a broken record, but this has been happening to us for over a decade, robbing us of our best talent. It's just that it appears to now be moving to contracts that effect the bigger nations players as well.

People should have paid more attention to our situation, this has been on the cards for a long time.

 

[the big bambino]

Probably the reason Archer got so upset when it was reported he was having elbow surgery. Maybe he went there at the request of MI and didn't tell the ECB? Maybe he was worried the story would lead to this more important story before he was ready to tell it.

 

[Prince EWS]

The title of the thread is a bit over-dramatic - we'll still have international cricket even if it's not always the best against the best. In fact it already isn't due to the volume of cricket, resting and rotation, and as mentioned above the fact that this sort of thing was already happening to good players in less well-off countries.

Think of association football - international football still exists even if players regularly make themselves unavailable for it, and no-one tries to have a cash grabbing league during the World Cup. We will definitely always have international cricket even if it isn't the year-round focus it is now.

I honestly kind of shrug off the prospect of moving from mostly a constant circle of internationals to something that's more league-based, but what grates me is that these leagues are all T20s which I find far less interesting. The most talented cricketers mostly playing the format I find the least interesting is a horrible outcome from a personal perspective.

 

[Daemon]

Imagine if cricket started as T20s and someone tried to introduce the concept of Tests. Would be laughed out the room. Tests are really so dumb but also the best thing ever.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Test mercenary Cheteshwar Pujara plying his trade in the Domino's 5-day Staminathon.

 

[GotSpin]

The title of the thread is a bit over-dramatic - we'll still have international cricket even if it's not always the best against the best. In fact it already isn't due to the volume of cricket, resting and rotation, and as mentioned above the fact that this sort of thing was already happening to good players in less well-off countries.

Think of association football - international football still exists even if players regularly make themselves unavailable for it, and no-one tries to have a cash grabbing league during the World Cup. We will definitely always have international cricket even if it isn't the year-round focus it is now.

I honestly kind of shrug off the prospect of moving from mostly a constant circle of internationals to something that's more league-based, but what grates me is that these leagues are all T20s which I find far less interesting. The most talented cricketers mostly playing the format I find the least interesting is a horrible outcome from a personal perspective.

I’d find franchise FC cricket quite exciting personally

 

[Flem274*]

Imagine if cricket started as T20s and someone tried to introduce the concept of Tests. Would be laughed out the room. Tests are really so dumb but also the best thing ever.

It's a bit like when people post their wishlists for video game sequels and it's all this hyper immersive over the top deep simulation stuff.

But with cricket we started there.

 

[Prince EWS]

"Wouldn't it be cool to play this without over restrictions to separate the men from the boys?" doesn't seem like that much of a stretch, but once they realised it'd go for ~3 days, someone coming up with "let's have two innings and make it go even longer" does seem batshit insane.