More Problems for Durham?

Joined: 04 Jun 2015, 18:32

12 Sep 2017, 07:07 #11

Dawson is from Hampshire and whether you agree with his selection or not he played for England this summer as did Vince last year.

I agree they have gone down a specific route and targeted some kolpaks available all season but then they have supplemented this with overseas as well. How they don't breach any salary cap is beyond me.

Some of the kolpaks signed by Lancashire wouldn't get in our second team based on their performances though

Joined: 07 Sep 2015, 21:28

12 Sep 2017, 07:40 #12

It was as early as 2012 when Durham were given a very modest fine and deducted 2.5 points in the CC and just a fraction of a point in the other competitions for the 2013 season because they broke the salary cap.

Although they subsequently kept within the cap they probably could and should have tried to reduce their spending on players in the run up to the financial problems of 2016.

Vince, Carberry, Crane, Dawson.

If things had gone the other way perhaps Hants could be in a similar position to us, losing almost as many players to England.

Joined: 07 Aug 2017, 21:14

12 Sep 2017, 08:46 #13

Carberry, vince, Dawson and crane never played for England in the same team. All isolated caps so minimum disruption
Dawson only played two tests this summer and crane was 12th man. I'm talking about this season in regards to losing players to England duty so Hampshire have lost 2 players. Lancashire just Anderson. Butler doesn't play cc
Also carberry is at Leicestershire.

My opinion is you should get points for providing players to England because if not you just get ****** throughout the season at the discretion of the ECB. I do believe that you should have to have a minimum of 9 players that qualify to play for England in your 11. 1 overseas and 1 kolpac maximum

Look at our list of players unavailable for today

Root and bairstow (Johnny might not get a ODi game) still Yorkshire ccc players
Ballance also missed a chunk of the season and got injured playing for England

Now you tell me who's got the better idea and who gets the better deal??
Durham and Yorkshire or Hampshire and Lancashire??

Joined: 02 Apr 2014, 09:31

12 Sep 2017, 08:54 #14

Can we delete the post above please admin, absolutely disgraceful analogy used.

Joined: 02 Jan 2014, 10:57

12 Sep 2017, 10:51 #15

It is stating the obvious that the more players a side gives up to the England team, the more challenging it is. It is obvious that if all of those players were available, then you would expect the side to perform better - in general.

However, in practice it is nothing like as simple as that. Hampshire are relatively free of England call ups, and have a few non English qualified players, but going into today's round of games, they are only 13 points ahead of us. Hardly a massive premium for fielding a settled team with a lot of non English qualified players?

Equally Yorkshire were ultimately competitive in the championship last year - and would have won had the final game at Lords gone their way - and this was with a side that was massively depleted throughout the year. How did we manage that?

I have no problem with the odd kolpak (and indeed such a person might be a better bet than an overseas), but going down the Hampshire route seems to me to be self-defeating. One of the advantages of providing England players is that you get them back at some point (Ballance, Bresnan). Another advantage is that young cricketers want to play for Yorkshire and see this as a good route through to playing for England. Remove that possibility or reduce it, and those players will be scant. We may not see much of Bairstow now, but we will when he retires and we benefitted hugely from the time he was an aspiring English player.

Joined: 20 Aug 2013, 11:26

12 Sep 2017, 10:59 #16

Martin -- you state that we will benefit when Bairstow retires from International cricket. Will we??

Vaughan did not play for Yorkshire after his England career, Swann did not, Strauss did not, Prior did not, and many others took the same path.

Do you honestly think that Root will come back and play 14 CC matches a season when he retires from International cricket.

Sad to say, but it does not happen. Once they go away and play for England they hardly ever return to the counties after ending their England duties.

Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 17:25

12 Sep 2017, 11:11 #17

"Sad to say, but it does not happen. Once they go away and play for England they hardly ever return to the counties after ending their England duties."

Bell, Trott, Trescothick, Collingwood, Sidebottom, Bresnan, Finn, Patel, Read, Harmison, Hoggard, Ramprakash, Hick...

Joined: 25 May 2014, 07:15

12 Sep 2017, 11:16 #18

Bell and Trott are still playing county championship. Not that it is doing Warwickshire much good this season.

Joined: 02 Jan 2014, 10:57

12 Sep 2017, 11:17 #19

Stu - the point I was making was that it is simplistic to say that losing player to England is always a negative. The point about retired players coming back was really a minor one - the bigger point is about a club being more attractive to aspiring cricketers if it is seen as the place to play at to aspire to international cricket. But we have Bresnan - effectively retired from international cricket, but still playing at a high level. Sidebottom explicitly retired from the international game to come and play for us. Root, I doubt but if Bairstow fell out of favour, I think he would come back and play for us yes.

None of this supports the over the top policy by the ECB to protect England players by the way!

Joined: 27 Mar 2014, 13:24

12 Sep 2017, 11:38 #20

Bairstow more than most is likely to want to return to his county.

But the difference with above examples, they had nowhere else to go. With the likely increase in money for nothing T20 leagues. The lure of some pay days at the end of your career will be strong.
My darling Maxi