Was this player fundamentally ignored because of pace?

[Starfighter]

There was a lot of chopping and changing in that era. The mainstays would have been Gough, Caddick, Malcolm and Cork.

Many bowlers were given a go but discarded almost immediately. The selectors were a joke.

I see you're thinking like a proper English selector and you've forgotten Fraser

 

[Jumno]

Is it true that English cricket in the 90s was very county-centric and international games were not treated equally important?

The 99 world cup squad wasn't amazing.

Think it changed after the 99 world cup. They brought in central contracts I think £30k a year in 2000. Which was back then, a very very good yearly salary. Considering back then the minimum wage must've been £4.50 per hour for a 40 hours a working week.

 

[Starfighter]

Is it true that English cricket in the 90s was very county-centric and international games were not treated equally important?

The 99 world cup squad wasn't amazing.

Think it changed after the 99 world cup. They brought in central contracts I think £30k a year in 2000. Which was back then, a very very good yearly salary. Considering back then the minimum wage must've been £4.50 per hour for a 40 hours a working week.

Darren Gough or his ghostwriter had a long whinge about this is his autobiography. In short, yes it was and it lead to unsustainable workloads.

He then said that part of the logic expounded at the time for central contracts was to manage the fast bowlers better, so of course when they were finally instituted they handed them all to batsmen.

 

[mr_mister]

There was a lot of chopping and changing in that era. The mainstays would have been Gough, Caddick, Malcolm and Cork.

Many bowlers were given a go but discarded almost immediately. The selectors were a joke.

You forgot Fraser! Lowest average out of any of them (from the whole decade)

 

[Yeoman]

Is it true that English cricket in the 90s was very county-centric and international games were not treated equally important?

Test matches were always considered more important than county matches. However until 2000 the players were employed by their counties and only released for internationals. As others have noted, central contracts allowed international players more rest and better preparation time. It was the key reason why, considering the period as a whole, England have been more successful after 2000 than they were in the 80s and 90s.

 

[Yeoman]

Test matches were always considered more important than county matches. However until 2000 the players were employed by their counties and only released for internationals. As others have noted, central contracts allowed international players more rest and better preparation time. It was the key reason why, considering the period as a whole, England have been more successful after 2000 than they were in the 80s and 90s.

…backed up by much more consistent selection and a four-day, two-division county championship.

 

[trundler]

Test matches were always considered more important than county matches.

Well, not before the Golden Age.

 

[Spark]

Chadd Sayers

Hey he got a game.

Let's not talk about how he got that game...

 

[Ali TT]

The obsession with pace really began in the early 2000s when Duncan Fletcher was coach. It was a downside of what was otherwise a much more successful era than the preceding 15 years.

Yes, we played a whole bunch of medium pacers in the 90s so was less of an issue about his pace and more about selectorial practice of giving guys two tests then dropping them.

 

[Yeoman]

Well, not before the Golden Age.

I was thinking about the 1980s and 90s. I know that in the 1890s and early 1900s there were disputes over player release for home matches however not I think since. In the same period, away series were not always taken as seriously it is true with less than full strength sides and counties sometimes being reluctant for their players to go in long tours.

 

[Ali TT]

Is it true that English cricket in the 90s was very county-centric and international games were not treated equally important?

I don't think it was "very county-centric" - the national side were probably more prominent publicly than they are now, even though they were generally terrible, while first class games were as poorly attended as they remain. What was an issue was English players having to play a county game, then without much of a break, play a test then straight back to the counties. Players from that era, especially bowlers, have often commented on how gruelling that was. Obviously central contracts have changed that a lot, but also two divisions, the loss of all cricket to Sky and the cuts to both local and sports journalism have resulted in a greater decline to the attention the county game gets compared to the national side as much as any rebalancing between the two. Limited over county tournaments, of which there were at least 3 each season, were big draws and often on free TV.

 

[Yeoman]

In retrospect, there was a great del of county cricket shown in the summer in the 80s and early 90s, considering that there were only four terrestrial channels altogether. I don’t know what ratings it got however it was probably cheap daytime filler for the BBC.

 

[Jumno]

TBF, Bicknell's last test was impressive. Two wickets in the first and four vital wickets in the second.

Did brilliant in the FC and one day county circuit.

 

[Jumno]

Unfortunately county players had to work normal jobs for six months back then. Not sure how much county players got paid back in the late 90s.

 

[Yeoman]

I don’t know, however the first set of central contracts were for around 60k, I believe. I read not too long ago that when Warks signed Brian Lara in 1994 he was on around £40k which was considered superstar wages.

 

[Yeoman]

A quick Google proves that my memory is not addled yet https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-much-does-he-earn-no-32-brian-lara-1422075.html

 

[Jumno]

A quick Google proves that my memory is not addled yet https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-much-does-he-earn-no-32-brian-lara-1422075.html

40,000 pounds back in 1994 a ridiculous amount of money. It's like earning £120k as an accountant or marketing or web developer today with not much years of experience.

However I don't think the general county player playing for Northamptonshire or Leicester earnt that much for six months worth of playing cricket.

 

[Yeoman]

In Eight Days a Week(1988) Jonathan Agnew wrote that only two Leicestershire players were on 10k or more pa. This was for six months but it was hard to get decent paying work for the other six. 10k would have been around average annual earnings at the time.

 

[Jumno]

In Eight Days a Week(1988) Jonathan Agnew wrote that only two Leicestershire players were on 10k or more pa. This was for six months but it was hard to get decent paying work for the other six. 10k would have been around average annual earnings at the time.

10k a year in 1988 would've lasted for the whole year and still way above the yearly salary for normal workers.

Maybe £12k a year in 1999 for a 'normal county' players for six months of work. Which is slightly above the salary of normal workers. However attendance and merchandise sales may have been poor.

 

[wpdavid]

I was thinking about the 1980s and 90s. I know that in the 1890s and early 1900s there were disputes over player release for home matches however not I think since. In the same period, away series were not always taken as seriously it is true with less than full strength sides and counties sometimes being reluctant for their players to go in long tours.

That was more the case in the 1950s and 1960s. By the 1980s, we had a few cases of individuals choosing not to tour (Botham in 1984/85, Gooch in 1985/86), but it was not down to selection policy. Even the side that toured India in 1972/73 without Boycott, Edrich, Illingworth and Snow was, I think, down to those players not being available.