***Official*** English Domestic Season 2008

[Perm]

With Richard on this one, glad to see them scrapped.

 

[Goughy]

And finally, comes the news we've all been waiting for.

County-vs-UCCE games scrapped. This particular report doesn't mention it, but hopefully the nonsense of Oxford Uni vs Cambridge Uni Varsity matches being classed as First-Class and List-A OD games will be stopped as well.

The tradition will have a swansong in 2009. But the real absurdity of such games having First-Class status is for mine best summed-up by this: in this season's averages, there are 6 bowlers (plus 1 part-timer) who average 20 or less thanks to playing their only game of the season against UCCE opposition. IE, despite doing well in these UCCE games, they've been unable to find a first-team spot for the rest of the season. So a) the counties take success against UCCEs with no seriousness whatsoever and b) they take the UCCEs so un-seriously that they field players who no matter what aren't going to play first-team cricket again that season.

And perhaps even more riduculously, there are also two students who average under 20.

Just a bit of a shame things can't be retrospectively re-applied I suppose, but you can't win 'em all.

It certainly openes up room in a congested schedule (though at a crappy weather tim of the summer)

However, Id keep the Varsity game as FC. Its a long tradition and its only 1 game.

 

[superkingdave]

St Kilda are a first grade club (well they have other grades as well). Cross has played for them before in 05-06 IIRC and did okay. It would be strange for both of them to play at the same place because only one overseas player can play in each grade iirc

Actually they might be splitting the season between them tbh

 

[Goughy]

I dont like Grant Flower playing for Essex 2nds.

As a near 38 year old foreigner he

a) takes a place away from a young player
b) takes a place away from an experienced English player

I dont see the need for Kolpaks, EU players or overseas players to be playing 2nds once they pass a certain age. They just clog the system up.

 

[Richard]

TBH, I don't really like Grant Flower playing for Essex these days at all. He's not that good any more, he's only tainting his past by playing when he's not that good any more, and Essex would do better in so many ways with someone else.

I hope he retires at the end of this season - playing a winning role in the FP final and averaging 40-odd in the National League would be the perfect way to finish. But has he ever scored many Championship runs for them?

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

It certainly openes up room in a congested schedule (though at a crappy weather tim of the summer)

However, Id keep the Varsity game as FC. Its a long tradition and its only 1 game.

Entirely agree with these sentiments. Keep the Varsity game FC, it's only one game and one of the oldest (the oldest?) first-class fixture in the world. The UCCE games were unnecessary though. Perhaps some other warm-up series could be arranged, like they do in India - a two-day competition perhaps, with x amount of U23 players in each side?

Then again, the schedule is packed enough as it is.

 

[GIMH]

England players who played in both Tests and ODIs will be rested for the rest of the season, but the likes of Cook, Ambrose, Swann will be allowed to play for their counties. Harmison will, as well.

 

[fredfertang]

Muddled thinking in my opinion - seems to be pretty much a consensus that Harmison has bowled himself into form this season by actually playing full time for his county - so why decide he doesn't need a rest when Anderson and Flintoff do?

Not that I'm worried about relegation you understand - after all with Saj to lead the attack with ol' Champagne Cork who needs Fred and the Burnley Express

 

[GIMH]

Well Anderson I could understand, but tbh Flintoff has only played two games more than Harmison, I'd to see him lose the awesome form he's coming into. Sure he won't, mind, best player ever

 

[Prince EWS]

Muddled thinking in my opinion - seems to be pretty much a consensus that Harmison has bowled himself into form this season by actually playing full time for his county - so why decide he doesn't need a rest when Anderson and Flintoff do?

What's good for Harmison isn't necessarily good for everyone. If Harmison has bowled himself into form by playing full-time, then it makes sense for him specifically to play as often as possible. Flintoff's different as he's far more injury-prone than Harmison and doesn't seem to need as much bowling to find a grove as Harmy does so I agree with the decision there. If he was still struggling with the bat I'd want him to play, but he's hitting them well too so I'd rest him.

I can see both sides of the coin with Anderson. On one hand, he's had a long summer playing every game - early on there was pressure on his Test place too. This is coming right on the back of a winter in which he had a similar workload. Watching him in this ODI series, he looks like he needs a rest. On the other he's shown similar dips in form to Harmison after being rested from county duties to carry drinks and/or lighten his overall workload.

 

[Richard]

I think it'd be plain insanity to let Anderson play again this season TBH.

Anyone else, apart from Sidebottom, I'd not be enormously fussed about them playing.

 

[zaremba]

What cricket fans care about is not of importance - it's what having yet more ICL players in the county game does to the ECB's like-it-or-not-exceptionally-important relationship with the BCCI, who don't seem to grasp the fact that neither they nor the ECB can do a thing about British and European laws.

"What cricket fans care about is not of importance" - well that's well over 63,000 posts wasted then Richard.

Anyhow I can't see how having 2 ICL players (Murray Goodwin being the other, Mushy now having retired) will change anything as regards (a) the ECB's relationship with the BCCI or (b) Sussex's relationship with the ECB and/or the BCCI. Care to enlighten us as to what difference it makes to anything?

Besides I happen to take the view (call me a boring old employment lawyer if you want) that the law of restraint of trade has a purpose and a meaning. If the BCCI can't understand it, they are simply wrong and the sky will not fall if they are defied.

As for Sami the bowler, he's woeful. One of the worst Test bowlers ever and though he's had some success in domestic cricket his international days really did reveal a dreadful bowler. Nor have I seen him bowl especially fast (90mph) for some years now and he may well be pushing or over 30 anyway.

Well waddya know, he's been picked to play domestic rather than Test cricket for Sussex. I've no idea how old he is but cricinfo reckon he's 27. Pushing 30 doesn't mean you're not capable of bowling fast - cf Lee, Shoaib, Harmison, Flintoff etc etc etc etc etc.

 

[fredfertang]

You boring old employment lawyer Mr Z

 

[zaremba]

You boring old employment lawyer Mr Z

Indeed. But with my surreptitious below-the-desk texted cricket updates, I like to think that I add a certain maverick flair to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals up and down the land

 

[fredfertang]

Indeed. But with my surreptitious below-the-desk texted cricket updates, I like to think that I add a certain maverick flair to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals up and down the land

I shall now forever have an image of a bewigged Maurice Tate look alike using tic tac signals to convey the latest scores to all court users "in the know"

 

[zaremba]

I shall now forever have an image of a bewigged Maurice Tate look alike using tic tac signals to convey the latest scores to all court users "in the know"

You only refer to tac because you know my email address. And it's simply unkind to refer to my tic.

 

[fredfertang]

You only refer to tac because you know my email address. And it's simply unkind to refer to my tic.

Don't tease Mr Z - you know I'm not clever enough to think that subtlely

 

[stumpski]

Somewhat surprised to see play about to resume at the Rose Bowl - it was absolutely throwing it down for a while there. Looks like most of the crowd have given up too. Durham 42-2 in pursuit of 298, or they were when they went off.

 

[Richard]

"What cricket fans care about is not of importance" - well that's well over 63,000 posts wasted then Richard.

You know what I mean. On this issue. You can have all the British people you want thinking the ICL should be left to its own devices, but that won't alter the BCCI's stance one jot.

Anyhow I can't see how having 2 ICL players (Murray Goodwin being the other, Mushy now having retired) will change anything as regards (a) the ECB's relationship with the BCCI or (b) Sussex's relationship with the ECB and/or the BCCI. Care to enlighten us as to what difference it makes to anything?

The BCCI, wrong-headedly, apparently become increasingly annoyed whenever someone under the jurisdiction of the ECB (which all counties are) sign another ICL player. Hence the ECB are likely - however wrong it may be - to take a bit more grief for this.

Besides I happen to take the view (call me a boring old employment lawyer if you want) that the law of restraint of trade has a purpose and a meaning. If the BCCI can't understand it, they are simply wrong and the sky will not fall if they are defied.

That they are wrong has rarely stopped the BCCI from taking certain standpoints before now, and doubtless it won't again. However I don't like the ICL at all and while obviously players would be mad to turn-down such vast pay-packets I don't neccessarily see there being too much wrong with being ostracised from the mainstream game because of doing so - players no longer need county cricket if they're earning ICL money. Equally, if players want to turn-down the ICL because they feel it's wrong to take that route, as several people did with WSC, very fair play to them.

While the restraint of trade law applying here is perfectly fine when someone is under existing contract, there is (I presume - you might be able to offer some interesting insight here) nothing that can be done to force people to offer contracts to anyone. And therefore it disappoints me when counties do offer ICL players contracts after their superiors' (ie, the ECB - who keep them solvent) position on that league has been made clear.

As for the sky falling if the BCCI are defied - well no it won't, but it'd be fruitless and foolish to deny that the BCCI are the powerhouse of cricket, and that deliberately sticking two fingers up to them is exceedingly unwise.

Well waddya know, he's been picked to play domestic rather than Test cricket for Sussex.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But he's still very poor, and his Test performances show just how poor.

I've no idea how old he is but cricinfo reckon he's 27.

Yeah that's his official birthdate - you can never take those as read in Pakistan though. Although this may be on the change.

Pushing 30 doesn't mean you're not capable of bowling fast - cf Lee, Shoaib, Harmison, Flintoff etc etc etc etc etc.

No it doesn't neccessarily, but as I say, Sami hasn't done so for ages. He was early-mid-80s as far back as 2005/06 when England toured there, and hasn't bowled any quicker since when I've been watching.

 

[zaremba]

While the restraint of trade law applying here is perfectly fine when someone is under existing contract, there is (I presume - you might be able to offer some interesting insight here) nothing that can be done to force people to offer contracts to anyone. And therefore it disappoints me when counties do offer ICL players contracts after their superiors' (ie, the ECB - who keep them solvent) position on that league has been made clear.

Broadly speaking you're right in saying you can't force anyone to offer an employment contract to anyone. But I can't see how that arises here. The issue that more commonly arises, and arises here, is whether an employer can be stopped from offering a contract to an individual by virtue of a contractual agreement with a third party. Here the restraint of trade doctrine applies, and powerfully, as the ECB found out earlier this summer when forced to back down from its ridiculous posturing over Mushtaq et al. It makes no difference whether you're talking about an existing contract, or a prospective contract.

As I say, the BCCI didn't cast the ECB into the fiery pit for backing down. This is because, pantomime villains though they may appear, the BCCI also have lawyers and realise what can and can't be done.

The BCCI, wrong-headedly, apparently become increasingly annoyed whenever someone under the jurisdiction of the ECB (which all counties are) sign another ICL player. Hence the ECB are likely - however wrong it may be - to take a bit more grief for this.

I doubt it very much. And if they do, the ECB should tell the BCCI where to stick it. And if the ECB don't do that, well that's the ECB's issue, not Sussex's.

How all this adds up to what you've perceived to be a "lack of common-sense" on the part of Sussex is, I'm afraid, beyond me.

As for Sami's merits as a bowler, I have an open mind (try it some time!) and am prepared to wait and see.