England in Australia 2010-11 January 25, 2011

Tremlett awarded incremental contract

ESPNcricinfo staff

Chris Tremlett has been rewarded for his role in England's victorious Ashes campaign, with the ECB offering him an incremental contract for the remainder of the 2011 season.

Though Tremlett missed out on selection for the forthcoming World Cup, he has played in each of England's first three ODIs in Australia, having starred with the ball in the final three Tests of the Ashes at Perth, Melbourne and Sydney.

He claimed 17 wickets at 23.35 in those matches having come into the team as a replacement for Stuart Broad, and after announcing himself with 5 for 87 in the first innings at Perth, it was he who claimed the honour of the series-sealing wicket, when he bowled Michael Beer off the inside-edge at Sydney.

"The selectors are delighted with the contribution Chris has made in both forms of the game this winter," said the national selector, Geoff Miller. "His return of 17 wickets from three Test matches in Australia was an outstanding effort and he can be very proud of the role he played in helping the team retain the Ashes."

Tremlett came into the series with a reputation for flakiness, but having impressed for Surrey following his move from Hampshire the previous winter, he was picked on the recommendation of England's bowling coach, David Saker, who reckoned that his 6'8" frame and economical action bore all the hallmarks of an international-standard bowler.

Non-contracted players can earn an England increment contract via a points system. Five points are awarded for a Test appearance and two for a T20 or ODI appearance, with an increment contract being awarded automatically once the player reaches 20 points during the 12-month contract period.

"I'm really pleased but I have to say it's no great surprise," said Chris Adams, Surrey's director of cricket. "He has looked a class act in an England shirt, and he was a class act for Surrey last summer. He came to Surrey with the ambition of contributing at international level. It was a fresh start and a fresh approach, and he's driven forward with it."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Andrew on January 28, 2011, 22:02 GMT

    @A_Vacant_Slip - it is true that Oz underestimated the Pommie challenge, that being said who in their right mind would of expected Cook (a talented still youthful) at this stage a Test journeyman (prior to the Ashes), to knock up a Bradmanesque summer. You or Wombats or anybody sfollowing cricket would NOT have seen the coming. Cook was ONE POOR TEst from being dropped. Showed little promise on the previous tour like Anderson. I was worried about Trott & KP, but I thought Cook would continue to nibble outside off & be dropped towards the end of the series - you could say I was wide of the mark on that one. I am not wide of the mark on Broad or Finn. I was @ the Gabba on the 3rd day & he bowled crap. Anderson was far superior & got next to nothing. Finn bowled crap his run up was crap - the worst I've seen since Merv Hughes in his early days - in fact way worse. He will have BIG problems if he doesn't remedy this. Fact is Broad averaged 80 because he was crap in Oz.

  • Sharon on January 28, 2011, 19:11 GMT

    @SomethingWitty you are delibarately winding up 5wombats. i know why you call yourself something witty! It's funny! But I can't see how Hilfenhaus or Bollinger are supposed to be good bowlers? Hilfenhaus couldn't buy a wicket - it was a big joke. Boliinger was a whole lot of nothing. You must be the only person in the world who thinks these bowlers are better than Broad! But - you are clearly Australian and it must be hard to deal with being mistaken about so many english players; Cook, Anderson, Trott, Bell, etc. A lot of aussies were wrong about these players and i think you have picked on Broad because he wasn't playing. Why didn't you say Graham Onions (who is out injured) was useless - that would have made perfect sense.

  • John on January 28, 2011, 14:22 GMT

    Ahh 5wombats, no need to create such a fuss. I'm merely stating my opinion. In response to some of the more valid points of your argument; no Broad is not as good a bowler as Hilfy. Hilfy was miles below his best this summer, but is a genuinely good test match wicket taker. - Again, a swing bowler who pitches the ball FULL. Regarding Dougy, I really don't know how you can judge him, since you saw him in ONE test on the flattest of flat tracks, just AFTER he'd come back from injury. - Ask Chris Gayle or Sachin Tendulkar about Dougy Bollinger, I'm pretty sure they'd both agree that he's a very good bowler. Also, most of the ICC's rankings are rather spurious and erroneous. Broad is ranked 12th in test matches. Ok, Mitchell Johnson is ranked 6th, and was recently ranked 2nd. - What does that say? Finally, I notice that you've stopped going on about a the supposed lack of young talented players in Australian cricket. Is there any reason for that? Or have you decided to take my word on it?

  • Martin on January 28, 2011, 12:55 GMT

    @Something_Witty; OMG! "The fact of the matter is that Broad would struggle to get a game for any of our state sides".... That is LUDICROUS! A comment of unbelievable breathtaking silliness. Look - if Australia is so well invested with bowling talent; WHERE IS IT!!!??? - because it certainly wasn't on display in The Ashes. You MUST be taking the micky - you can't possibly believe this rubbish you are coming out with! Unbelieveable. OMG!!! Broad - not as good as Hilf!!, not as good as Bollinger!! Ha ha ha!! You go on pursuading yourself - because you certainly are not pursuading me. OMG....! I know I've fallen for your little wind-up but - You CAN'T possibly be serious. Broad is rated 12 in the world for a reason you know. Wonder what it might be???? Yep - he's pretty good!

  • John on January 28, 2011, 11:03 GMT

    @5wombats, I dunno who this "Hagrid" person you're talking to is. Pretty sure he's still living in his hut at Hogwarts, so he can't be posting here can he? The fact of the matter is that Broad would struggle to get a game for any of our state sides in Shield matches. He might get a go with one of the weaker bowling sides, (but there aren't many of those), and if he did get a go, it would only be because of his ability to score useful runs down the order, not just because of his bowling. There is no way he would be among the best 4 bowlers in the country at the moment. (Given that our selectors seem to ignore talent and potential at the moment though, he might actually have a chance of playing for Aus!) All jokes aside, the bottom line is, Stuart Broad is a poor test bowler who would not even be in consideration if he were Australian. His only virtue is that he is still young, but given that he doesn't seem to have learned much in his career so far, it doesn't really inspire confidence.

  • Martin on January 28, 2011, 8:52 GMT

    @Meety & Hagrid - you both have something in your eyes if you can't see Broads talent, youth and potential. Astounding comments for both of you! You know perfectly well that he would walk into the current Australian "bowling" line up - a bowling line up that regularly failed to bowl England out once let alone twice. Now - either Australia bowling is fine - and England batting is outstanding OR Englands batting is average - and Australias bowling is rank poor. Now my friends - which is it? I think you have both forgotten what talented bowling looks like because you have been watching Australia lately and imagining that they can bowl. If The Ashes showed anything - it showed that Australia needs bowlers. OMG.

  • John on January 28, 2011, 1:16 GMT

    *Sigh*, there's no point arguing about it if you refuse to listen. A good economy rate does not make someone a good test bowler. Nathan Bracken had a career economy rate of 2.72, but he rarely got a game for Australia because his bowling was NOT suited to test cricket. You compare Broad to Ryan Harris. - The difference here is that Rhino maintained a good economy rate while being consistently threatening. He was very unlucky not to pick up a bundle more wickets. Harris is a swing bowler who likes to pitch the ball up for the most part. Broad is just a back of a length bowler who thinks that because he's so tall, he MUST bang the ball in short. Tremlett is showing Broad what a tall bowler is supposed to do with his extra height. - Get the ball full, get extra bounce off a full length, along with a little bit of swing/seam either way. Tremlett is a good test bowler, Stuart Broad is not. End of story. I bet if you ask any batsman from either side who they'd rather face, they'd say Broad.

  • Andrew on January 28, 2011, 0:09 GMT

    @5wombats - LOL you have to use Broad's economy as an example of his brilliance! His economy was low for 2 reasons 1) bowled way outside off stump 2) Oz batsmen appeared intent on trying to outgrind the Poms attack (obviously failed), but should of thrashed Broad around the park. Talking economy what was Finn's @ the WACA???? He was dropped because he wasn't up to it. He needs a good 12 mths intensive work with Saker on his run up or otherwise he'll be fodder. @ A_Vacant_Slip - massive difference between Freddie & Broad, Freddie was a strike bowler for impact (who also was tough to get away). Doesn't matter any Poms won the series.

  • Martin on January 27, 2011, 21:57 GMT

    @valvolux - LOL. Right sentence, wrong country, wrong players. Your sentence should read as follows; ..."if the AUSTRALIAN selectors are serious about not having another ashes hangover....they need to make the tough selections...dropping Ponting, Clarke, Katich, Johnson, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, Doherty, and O'Keefe in is the other....". Collingwood showed the way and PONTING ought to be the next to follow. England - by contrast HAVE dropped players - eg. Finn - who at the time was the leading wicket taker in the series! Why? Because Tremlett was someone Australia hadn't seen much of, and because at Perth Tremlett was always going to be more dangerous than young Finn (who was tired anyway). The rest - as they say - is history. Call it good selection policy, call it ruthless, whatever it was - it was too good for Australia. Australia need to re-learn what they used to show the world = ruthless in ALL areas. Australia - time to dump the garbage and move on. Do it quickly please.

  • Sharon on January 27, 2011, 19:33 GMT

    @Something_Witty what is your problem with Broad!? He only played 2 tests and one of those was on a completely flat pitch where after day 1 everyone struggled to take wickets (especially Australia, he he!). He would have cleaned up at Melbourne and Sydney! Easy to diss a player when he isn't playing. Anyway - his career average is way better than 80 (35 actually) and in the ashes only Harris and Siddle had better averages than 35. Broads economy rate is always good - his career economy is 3.1 so he is hard to get after. this is how he gets his wickets he is hard to get away because he is so tall. He is much more reliable than Johnson. Flintoff had a career average of 33 and an economy rate of 3.0 and he was class so in this respect Broad is similar but Broad is only 24 years old. I would say that on career stats alone he would open the bowling with Harris if he was Australian. Thank god he is English, you can't have him!

  • No featured comments at the moment.