We now firmly entrenched a new era of cricket. The era where the reputation of players was based solely on their expoits in Test cricket, and to a lesser extent ODI's, is now gone and gone for good.
This new era is all about the T20 player. We will be seeing players elevated to "legends", and richer than any cricketer in the past having not played a single Test match. Furthermore, these players will probably decline any opportunity to play Test cricket as it no longer offers anything worthwhile to them (fame, glory and money) which they would have already acquired playing T20.
Welcome to the brave new world cricket fans.
New Era
-
The Black Prince
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:05 pm
snoops. this new era reward mediocre test cricketers.Snoop wrote:We now firmly entrenched a new era of cricket. The era where the reputation of players was based solely on their expoits in Test cricket, and to a lesser extent ODI's, is now gone and gone for good.
This new era is all about the T20 player.
when 2 mediocre cricketers like pollard and bravo can say to the wicb go to hell we dont need your 80K contract we clearly in a new era.
in this new era money rules.
brainless lash men are rewarded wid big bucks.
this new era of t20 is here to stay will never displace test cricket imo.
dis new t20 era is a godsend for brainless mediocre lashmen.
in dis new era any cricketer who want to make serious money must strive to be a brainless lashman.
-
Snoop
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:45 am
Bro, the only countries still interested in Tests are England, Australia, and for now South Africa.
The rest, especially India, have no real and genuine interest. It doesn't bring in the mula anymore. Sure everyone pays lip service "Test cricket is still the priority" "It's the highest form of the game" etc. but as shown by Bravo and Polly, it just doesn't bring home the bacon any more. Sad indeed, but the ICC and the BCCI were instrumental in this process.
Simply put, players don't need exposure from Test cricket to achieve notoriety and reputation as they did in the past. We will never see the likes of a Rahul Dravid again. A man who from his boyhood days nurtured and developed his game solely to be successful in Test cricket. Now we have the Pollards, Bravos, and David Warners.
The rest, especially India, have no real and genuine interest. It doesn't bring in the mula anymore. Sure everyone pays lip service "Test cricket is still the priority" "It's the highest form of the game" etc. but as shown by Bravo and Polly, it just doesn't bring home the bacon any more. Sad indeed, but the ICC and the BCCI were instrumental in this process.
Simply put, players don't need exposure from Test cricket to achieve notoriety and reputation as they did in the past. We will never see the likes of a Rahul Dravid again. A man who from his boyhood days nurtured and developed his game solely to be successful in Test cricket. Now we have the Pollards, Bravos, and David Warners.
-
BallOil
- Posts: 19409
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:12 pm
Here we go again... 
Pay the players a decent salary and these issues will all go away. Why is it only a handful of English players are in the IPL? Its all about eh $$$$
linkKerry Packer's World Series Cricket only ran between 1977 and 1979. For a brief time, it tore the world of cricket apart and led to players being banned from playing for their countries.
But given that no-one talks about it these days, did it really have much impact?
Its first aim was to earn money from cricket. It sought to do this by paying the players much more than they were used to. In the late 1970s cricketers, even the best in the world, were paid appallingly and treated poorly by their national associations. The event which led to the creation of WSC was the ABC's low offer for the rights to televise cricket - had they not offered such a low amount (only $210,000) over three years - the Packer Circus as it became known, would not have gained such traction among players. After WSC national associations woke up and pay for top cricketers increased. Not by much, in countries like England, but enough to prevent another
Pay the players a decent salary and these issues will all go away. Why is it only a handful of English players are in the IPL? Its all about eh $$$$
-
Snoop
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:45 am
The problem though Bally is a decent salary for a Windies player will not be a decent salary for an Oz player. And a decent salary for an Oz player will not be a decent salary for an Indian player and so on and so forth.
So we are now left with a situation where players from poorer regions who's boards cannot pay them a salary commensurate with players from other countries opting to freelance their services to foreign domestic T20 teams.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's quite obscene for patently medicore players like Polly and David Warner to be making twice as much money as a Michael Clarke, Shiv Chanderpaul, Eion Morgan etc.
But in this new T20 era it's much better to be a cowlasher who makes half a million to a million dollars playing only 1 month in the IPL, 2 weeks in the Champion's trophy, and 2 weeks in England or Oz than be a pedigree batsman making $80K playing 8 Test matches a year.
So we are now left with a situation where players from poorer regions who's boards cannot pay them a salary commensurate with players from other countries opting to freelance their services to foreign domestic T20 teams.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's quite obscene for patently medicore players like Polly and David Warner to be making twice as much money as a Michael Clarke, Shiv Chanderpaul, Eion Morgan etc.
But in this new T20 era it's much better to be a cowlasher who makes half a million to a million dollars playing only 1 month in the IPL, 2 weeks in the Champion's trophy, and 2 weeks in England or Oz than be a pedigree batsman making $80K playing 8 Test matches a year.
-
Googley
- Posts: 5465
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:05 pm
BallOil wrote:Snoop.... which of the following was or is bad in your opinion for WI cricket?
- Lloyd, Richards, etc abandoned WI cricket and went on to play for Packer?
Bravo and Pollard rejecting contracts to keep their options open?
Bally, one major distinction with the two examples... the whole team (except for Kalli) went to Packer. Its not the same with Bravo and Pollard. They are stepping away from the team. If i was in the WICB, i would drop dem skunts and never have them represent WI again!!
however, thats not going to happen. this is WI cricket. Look at what happened to Kalli! Instead of the "traitors," kalli got shafted! Mind you, the real reason Kalli didn't go to Packer was due to a contractual dispute. Regardless, he stayed and got shafted in the end.
-
BallOil
- Posts: 19409
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:12 pm
Googley,Noted! However, Bravo and Pollard are not walking away. It looks like they will decide on a series by series basis. No strings attached!Googley wrote:Bally, one major distinction with the two examples... the whole team (except for Kalli) went to Packer. Its not the same with Bravo and Pollard. They are stepping away from the team. If i was in the WICB, i would drop dem skunts and never have them represent WI again!!
however, thats not going to happen. this is WI cricket. Look at what happened to Kalli! Instead of the "traitors," kalli got shafted! Mind you, the real reason Kalli didn't go to Packer was due to a contractual dispute. Regardless, he stayed and got shafted in the end.
This could be a good opportunity to give the other players some exposure to international cricket. Plus, cash strapped WICB still have the contract money and possible these players services. This looks like a win-win solution here. 