'Players have to realise it is a two-way street'

As the world's governing body for cricket, the ICC comes in for its fair share of criticism but the recent tirade, from player representatives concerning our apparent indifference to player workloads, is quite simply ill-informed and wrong.

The ICC is well aware of the risks of burn-out among the game's leading performers. Too much cricket creates the possibility of players becoming fatigued, increasing the potential for injury and that, in turn, devalues the game with first-choice line-ups not on show.

Avoiding that cycle of problems was one reason why the ICC recently introduced its new six-year Future Tours Program (FTP) to replace the existing five-year schedule.

It was no simple task to put it together as it involved two years of analysis and ten different drafts but at the end of the process we believe this new FTP will play a crucial role in management of player workloads.

Why? Because the schedule was put together following extensive consultation and has factored in guidelines, supported at the ICC Cricket Committee, by players at the captains' meeting and by player representatives, including FICA, concerning the highest volume of matches each side should be playing.

Those guidelines are that, ideally, no teams should play more than 15 Test matches and 30 ODIs in a 12-month period.

These guidelines do need to be interpreted with a reasonable degree of flexibility from year to year but a review of the overall playing program for our Full Members shows teams rarely come close to this limit.

As an illustration, out of 60 annual touring programs under the new FTP, not one side is scheduled to exceed both the Test and ODI figures in any 12-month period and some sides play considerably less than that.

Australia, for example, will have just five Tests between the end of their match in Chittagong and the end of the ICC Cricket World Cup in April 2007 and some of their Test players may be feeling distinctly under-utilised in that time.

The same could be said for India (seven Tests in that same timeframe), New Zealand (three) and the West Indies (seven) among others, but if it means we get high quality cricket from well-rested players then less can be more.

Something else that has been included in the new FTP is a cap on the number of international Twenty20 matches that can be played in any year.

No side will be permitted to play more than two home Twenty20 matches in any series or more than three home matches in any one year. That is another way of limiting the amount of cricket that is played to ensure players get the rest they need as well as not saturating the market.

It should also be borne in mind that even with these measures in place there is a reliance on ICC's members to be responsible in scheduling additional commitments above and beyond those required by the FTP - two Tests and three ODIs home and away against each other during the six-year period.

The ICC recognizes the need for members to look to maximize their revenue in order to grow the game, as well as take part in icon series, and one way to do that is by scheduling more matches but, at the same time, they have to be mindful that the players are their prime assets and overworking them would benefit no one in the long run.

And what of the players? They operate in a high-pressure environment where their every move is scrutinized by global media coverage, they are away from home for long periods of time and few would dispute that when those factors are combined it adds up to a tough existence.

But at the same time they are engaged in their career of choice. They are doing something that the vast majority of people that watch them in action can only dream of, and they are well-paid, too. The current crop of international stars are better rewarded for their efforts than any of their predecessors.

On top of that, many of them also have access to excellent support structures with physiotherapists, fitness trainers, nutritionists and masseurs a regular part of their regimes. They are well looked after, there is little doubt about that.

With that in mind, players have to realise it is a two-way street. They cannot, on the one hand, complain of playing too much and then turn round and head off for a lucrative spell of English county cricket when there is a break in the schedule.

Not that all players are complaining. Indeed during our consultation period several of our members, including some of those where the players' association is affiliated to FICA, maintained the view they would like to be playing more cricket than they currently have scheduled. And that was backed up when we canvassed the views of Full Member captains.

Overall we think the balance that has been struck by the new FTP is about right and we believe that in conjunction with ICC Events it will help ensure that the sport continues to remain popular and lucrative for players, supporters, broadcasters and sponsors.