Indian Premier League

[silentstriker]

Ponting disappointed

I'm surprised too, actually. I thought Symonds might go for more, but not $1m more.

 

[Nate]

I thought Symonds might go for more.

Me too, but evidently one KFC Honey/Mustard Filler was enough. Just can't beat that taste!

 

[Goughy]

What Im amazed by is how people have said in this thread that the Indian players are getting substantial money because that is what the Indian public want to see.

Im in no position to say that this is wrong, as Ive no idea, but it is certainly different to how things are in the UK and other places.

The Indian cricketers play a min of 40+ days domestically a season and there are opportunities to see them play outside this comp.

One would think that big name foreign players, that are seldom playing in India, would be more of a draw than 2nd tier Indian players that are avalable to watch often.

 

[Arjun]

To fill in the gaps:

JAIPUR: Decent bunch still to pick from the locals

• Cheteshwar Pujara
• Vineet Saxena
• Rakesh Solanki
• Pinal Shah (WK)
• Rakesh Dhurv (SLA)
• Siddharth Trivedi (RMF)
• Rajesh Pawar (SLA)

CHENNAI: They will have problems, and how

• Balaji (RMF)
• Badrinath
• Ashwin (SLA)
• Vidyut (SLA)
• Bangar (RM)

BANGALORE: They too have a not-too-great set from the locals

• Rowland
• Asnodkar
• Yashpal Singh
• KB Pawan
• Faisal Shaikh (OB)
• Vinay Kumar (RM)
• Aiyappa (RFM)

DELHI: They have some good picks from the catchment

• Shikhar Dhawan
• Rajat Bhatia (RM)
• Pradeep Sangwan (LM)
• Praveen Kumar (RMF)
• Praveen Gupta (SLA)

MOHALI: Exodus of Punjab players to ICL has left them with extras and has-beens

• Ravneet Ricky
• Karan Goel
• Uday Kaul
• Sangram Singh
• Hemant Dogra
• Vikramjeet Malik (RM)
• Gagandeep Singh (RM)
• Vishal Bhatia (SLA)

MUMBAI: Mukesh Ambani's men may have blown it in bidding for foreign/outstation players, but have got a good chance here

• Rahane
• Mazumdar
• Vinayak Samant (WK)
• Iqbal Abdullah (SLA)
• Abhishek Nayar (RM)

 

[chaminda_00]

What Im amazed by is how people have said in this thread that the Indian players are getting substantial money because that is what the Indian public want to see.

Im in no position to say that this is wrong, as Ive no idea, but it is certainly different to how things are in the UK and other places.

The Indian cricketers play a min of 40+ days domestically a season and there are opportunities to see them play outside this comp.

One would think that big name foreign players, that are seldom playing in India, would be more of a draw than 2nd tier Indian players that are avalable to watch often.

I think a lot more had to do with actually performance value then actually seeing them play matches. With the 4 overseas player rule, the 2nd teir Indian players values got inflated, as they can play every match. If you get some decent like Kaif or Raina who wont be weak link in the side, they can become a major assest. If it wasn't for the 4 player rule, I dare say their values would be halved.

 

[honestbharani]

My problem here isn't with capitalism, it's just with where the sport has got to in general.

And yet you don't have a problem when the Aussies take the field with nicknames on their shirts every damn T20 game they play in????????????

 

[chaminda_00]

Yo Mahesh any chance for Chennai? What about the 16yo keeper batsmen from Maharashtra, Vishant More, for Mumbai keeping spot. The kid must have talent to be playing FC at 16.

 

[Arjun]

Yo Mahesh any chance for Chennai? What about the 16yo keeper batsmen from Maharashtra, Vishant More, for Mumbai keeping spot. The kid must have talent to be playing FC at 16.

Possible...

 

[silentstriker]

What Im amazed by is how people have said in this thread that the Indian players are getting substantial money because that is what the Indian public want to see.

Im in no position to say that this is wrong, as Ive no idea, but it is certainly different to how things are in the UK and other places.

The Indian cricketers play a min of 40+ days domestically a season and there are opportunities to see them play outside this comp.

One would think that big name foreign players, that are seldom playing in India, would be more of a draw than 2nd tier Indian players that are avalable to watch often.

Yea, but no one goes to see Ranji trophy. None. Even the finals are played in front of mostly empty stands. Also, more important than seeing them on the field are the commercial opportunities provided by Indian stars. I'd love to watch some Ranji Trophy games, but no games are even televised.

 

[social]

I think a lot more had to do with actually performance value then actually seeing them play matches. With the 4 overseas player rule, the 2nd teir Indian players values got inflated, as they can play every match. If you get some decent like Kaif or Raina who wont be weak link in the side, they can become a major assest. If it wasn't for the 4 player rule, I dare say their values would be halved.

Kaif must feellike he's won the lottery - can't get into any Indian side and is pocketing $675,000

BTW, what happened to Misbah Ul Haq? Not offered/refused a contract?

 

[honestbharani]

Kaif must feellike he's won the lottery - can't get into any Indian side and is pocketing $675,000

BTW, what happened to Misbah Ul Haq? Not offered/refused a contract?

indeed.


He would have been a great pick.


also, I feel Chennai's best shot might have come at the end. If Hussey is available for the main games, at least, I think he could well be the potential MVP for us.

 

[Goughy]

What part of the contracts are guaranteed?

If a player never plays do they still get paid? If so what proportion?

And are injured players obliged to travel and be with their clubs? Im assuming they will get paid if injured and Im assuming they must be declared injured by a club doctor but it may be tough to make someone from a different country hang around if they are not playing.

Basically, the conditions of the contracts would be interesting to know.

 

[silentstriker]

Apparently, there are grumbles that Symonds was bidded up high partly because of his statements about not touring Pakistan, and thus being available for the whole season.

 

[silentstriker]

What part of the contracts are guaranteed?

If a player never plays do they still get paid? If so what proportion?

No. If they are unavailable due to national commitments, they do not get paid for those matches. So if Ponting plays 50% of his matches, he will get 50% of his salary. Indian, SL and NZ players are available for most of their season, so they had high bids for them (McCullum got $900,000). Ponting didn't because he was thought to be unavailable for most of the season (for Symonds, see my post above).

And are injured players obliged to travel and be with their clubs? Im assuming they will get paid if injured and Im assuming they must be declared injured by a club doctor but it may be tough to make someone from a different country hang around if they are not playing.

Not sure on this point.

 

[Jamee999]

I'd rather have Ponting for 1 match than Katich for 14

 

[social]

Apparently, there are grumbles that Symonds was bidded up high partly because of his statements about not touring Pakistan, and thus being available for the whole season.

Symonds publicly indicated that he wasnt touring as far back as November so I simply think it's a combo of skill and profile (no such thing as bad publicity)

 

[Goughy]

No. If they are unavailable due to national commitments, they do not get paid for those matches. So if Ponting plays 50% of his matches, he will get 50% of his salary. Indian, SL and NZ players are available for most of their season, so they had high bids for them (McCullum got $900,000). Ponting didn't because he was thought to be unavailable for most of the season (for Symonds, see my post above).

But in any normal world that would drive the price up of a player like Ponting as you would only have to pay the proportion of the wage the same as the proportion of the games played.

Also when he played (given the 4 foreigner rule) you would have to drop an expensive overseas player to make room.

Only having to pay 20% (or whatever) of the value of the contract would generally see the value escalate.

 

[silentstriker]

Symonds publicly indicated that he wasnt touring as far back as November so I simply think it's a combo of skill and profile (no such thing as bad publicity)

Yup, he had been saying it for a while, so the teams thought he would be available for the whole tour.

 

[silentstriker]

But in any normal world that would drive the price up of a player like Ponting as you would only have to pay the proportion of the wage the same as the proportion of the games played.

Also when he played (given the 4 foreigner rule) you would have to drop an expensive overseas player to make room.

Only having to pay 20% (or whatever) of the value of the contract would generally see the value escalate.

Yup, you are right. Maybe they wanted to build a more stable lineup that can stay together most of the season? Not sure of any other reason, as Ponting is obviously a very good batsman and an excellent fielder. I noticed that most people who could play the whole season went for higher.

Guys like Jayasurya, Gayle, McCullom went for more than Ponting, and all SL players will be available the whole time, and NZ and WI will be available for the vast majority of the time.

 

[silentstriker]

Of course, Lee went for a pretty high price, but Lee's pretty much an honorary Indian.