Contracts the way forward (12 July 1999)

12 July 1999

Contracts the way forward

David Lloyd

The contracting centrally of England cricketers has been on a low light for some time now. It is widely acknowledged that it will be a difficult and slow process to satisfy the many interested parties, not least the players themselves.

Even when the fine details have been agreed, there is no guarantee that players offered a contract will take it up.

Prior to and during the World Cup there were three separate monetary issues - the players' pay negotiations with the England and Wales Cricket Board, the central contracts and meetings between some players and representatives of Channel 4 television.

Distractions? You bet they were. No matter - we move on. Why is it felt necessary to introduce central contracts? To start with, they will bring England into line with South Africa and Australia and with the impending increase in the amount of international cricket - there will be seven Tests and 10 one-day internationals next summer - it makes sense to contract the players to the centre so that they can prepare on and off the field as a team.

From my very recent position as England coach, I could have assured the Review Group on Central Contracts that the players are acutely aware of the need to do well and get results.

Why is it not plain sailing? Because we have a system in England that is dominated by county cricket. The 18 counties are, to a certain extent, independent businesses with traditions of competitiveness between each other. Then there is club and league cricket which, by and large, works independently from the county. The governing bodies of the game in England are working tirelessly to change the system but, as always, there is strong suspicion in the shires about change.

My own cricket career has shown me that the club player does not see a clear path to the county team and then to the national team. In the northern leagues, players and officials are parochial and in most cases see themselves outside of the national set-up. This is fundamentally wrong and has to change. Premier leagues have been introduced, on a small scale, and this has to be the way forward.

If premier leagues were off and running there would be no need for second XI cricket at county level. County staffs need be no larger than 16 and recruitment to the county XI would be through the premier league. This system operates very successfully elsewhere - in Australia. It is, of course, grade cricket. The grade cricketer can go from club to Test team in weeks on the back of his own performance and it has been done many times. The administrative difference is that the cricket is run by the local association, hence the names WACA and SACA, the Western Australian Cricket Association and the South Australian Cricket Association.

The Central Contracts Review Group were an interesting bunch. There were two people from the playing side, Martyn Moxon and Angus Fraser, who had little input into it, and some enthusiasts, who hold positions of authority within the game. There was also an MP. One glaring omission was Jack Simmons, who played for Lancashire, captained Tasmania and has spent a lifetime in the game. Now, as chairman of Lancashire County Cricket Club, he will understand the need for the England team to be successful because of the knock-on effect. He will also want adequate compensation when a player is contracted to England. This would almost certainly be a player that the county has developed from his youth.

The members of a county club expect to see the best players and if one of the 'stars' is away on national service, the club will need to provide another attraction. The counties see about L200,000 as adequate compensation for one player. On offer at the moment is L61,000. This sum will go towards paying the player's salary while he is, in effect, seconded to England. If the county club then want another player, they have to fork out another salary. If England, at a further stage, release the England player from his contract and he goes back to his county, the county now have two players and two salaries. Simmons sees this as a disincentive to provide players for the national team.

The contracted England player will be available to his county club when not required by England, say for NatWest and Benson and Hedges Cup games. In reality, this availability will be minimal.

First thoughts were to have 15 or 16 centrally contracted players, but this may be scaled down to six or seven because of financial constraints and just to see if it is workable in our existing system.

At the moment, the England spearheads - let us say Darren Gough and Andrew Caddick - could conceivably have come into a Test match having bowled 60 overs each in the preceding game, and then leave the Test match immediately to travel the length of the country to play in a one-day game. They can do it, but you will not get an optimum performance.

As I mentioned earlier, players are a little twitchy about the whole thing. Short-term contracts, the existing benefit system, more time away from home etc. They may see it as 'stick with the devil you know, rather than the devil you don't.'

Source :: The Electronic Telegraph