Interesting bit of info. If true, that sucks for Rogers because he'll be always missing out. I guess we'll see in this coming week who the reserve opener for the Ashes is, if anyone. It sounds like they only want to take 15 guys, so perhaps there will only be 1 reserve batsman (probably Watson vs Symonds vs North - 2 of those would make it, one as reserve and one in the team at #6) and possibly a reserve keeper.
Australian central contracts announced - Interesting...
- Thread starter sifter132
- Start date
Interesting bit of info. If true, that sucks for Rogers because he'll be always missing out. I guess we'll see in this coming week who the reserve opener for the Ashes is, if anyone. It sounds like they only want to take 15 guys, so perhaps there will only be 1 reserve batsman (probably Watson vs Symonds vs North - 2 of those would make it, one as reserve and one in the team at #6) and possibly a reserve keeper.
jordox
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
Rogers didn't deserve the contract. Jaques is next best after Hughes, so there isn't much point in giving Rogers one, when he will only play in worst case scenario and only in 1 form of the game.
I'm pleased to see that Hodge has been given one. He deserves to be playing for Australia - he is brilliant.
I'm pleased to see that Hodge has been given one. He deserves to be playing for Australia - he is brilliant.
smssia0112
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
Well considering Jaques has been injured all year while Rogers has been racking up runs in FC and OD cricket this year, I'm not sure how he doesn't deserve a contract, maybe he's not in their plans but he certainly has done nothing wrong. Had an awesome season in both forms.
jordox
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
Ah fair enough. Sorry, I wasn't aware that Rogers was doing well in domestic cricket.
It is a bit odd then.
But still, the fact remains that he shouldn't be playing for Australia anyway. In ODI cricket they have Marsh, Haddin, Watson, Hopes to open the batting and in Test they have Hughes and Katich. There isn't much point in giving players contracts as a reward for doing well in domestic cricket when you know they wont be playing unless injuries occur.
That's why I think the inclusion of Hodge is a strange one. They seem pretty reluctant to give him a go. I'd put him in the test team if I was in charge. Get rid of the red head - they don't need an all rounder.
However, he without a doubt deserves to be in their T20 team. Does anyone know if he is going to be playing in the T20 world cup?
It is a bit odd then.
But still, the fact remains that he shouldn't be playing for Australia anyway. In ODI cricket they have Marsh, Haddin, Watson, Hopes to open the batting and in Test they have Hughes and Katich. There isn't much point in giving players contracts as a reward for doing well in domestic cricket when you know they wont be playing unless injuries occur.
That's why I think the inclusion of Hodge is a strange one. They seem pretty reluctant to give him a go. I'd put him in the test team if I was in charge. Get rid of the red head - they don't need an all rounder.
However, he without a doubt deserves to be in their T20 team. Does anyone know if he is going to be playing in the T20 world cup?
Should Hughes or Katich get injured I'm sure Rogers will get a go. Else it will confirm that there is an issue with Rogers as he is clearly next in line. But as mentioned him being next in line doesn't automatically mean him getting a contract although it worked for Manou.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
I guess Rogers isn't the most selectable player, only of value as a Test opener, so that's only competition for 2 spots. Someone like Hodge might not be 2nd in line for any one place, but across three forms of cricket, he provides competition for 11 different positions.
formula1man
International Cricketer
I'm pretty happy with the list. Most of my favourite players have a contract.
We have 3 openers, Hughes Katich and Marsh. Marsh will be our backup test opener by the looks of it. They only need to pay one contract then rather than two.
I'm surprised White got one though.
Hodge was picked for his experience and they might be thinking of bringing him in permanently for ODI's as our miiddle order is struggling.
We have 3 openers, Hughes Katich and Marsh. Marsh will be our backup test opener by the looks of it. They only need to pay one contract then rather than two.
I'm surprised White got one though.
Hodge was picked for his experience and they might be thinking of bringing him in permanently for ODI's as our miiddle order is struggling.
jordox
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
Hodge for David Hussey maybe?
I don't understand why the Australian team is so set on having an all rounder all the time. You don't need them - especially if you've got James Hopes or Michael Clarke.
Nope, Hodge will not be at the World Cup. He could go if there is an injury I guess with a late call-up, but that's what makes his contract so puzzling.
You can argue he's the reserve batsman but Hodge's been overlooked for every vacancy in the last year: Tests - Marcus North and Andrew McDonald got the call to bat at #6. Andrew Symonds was picked ahead of him with ZERO form. In ODIs - Voges, Ferguson, White, North again and Watson played as a specialist batsman too. And in T20s he hasn't made the World Cup squad and guys like Ferguson, White or Voges are just as likely to get the call in the event of injury.
Plus Hodge is nearly at the age where Bevan, Lehmann, Mark Waugh those sort of guys started getting squeezed. And those guys were much more regular players than Hodge.
If it were me I'd have him on contract, but I'd play him a lot more often that the selectors. I'm just surprised THEY kept him on contract given how they've ignored him all year.
Sartaj
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2009
- Location
- Frisco, Texas
can you please tell me what exactly does a contract signify?i know the literal meaning but,can you tell me the technical meaning?
what is the difference between a contracted mr.x and a non contracted mr.y both being equally good enough to play at the hightst level?
what is the difference between a contracted mr.x and a non contracted mr.y both being equally good enough to play at the hightst level?
Last edited:
jordox
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
Very, very simply (an Australian could explain it better) they are contracts which signify these players will be given seasonal salary. That is, everyone contracted is given a salary.
If you aren't contracted, you only get paid for the amount of games you play.
It's like the difference between a full time worker and a part time worker. Kind of.
If you aren't contracted, you only get paid for the amount of games you play.
It's like the difference between a full time worker and a part time worker. Kind of.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
The major benefit of a central contract to Cricket Australia is that they can submit orders to a player without selecting them, thus ensuring their availability for a tour or series. A state contracted player is subject to similar conditions to the CA contract when they are selected and thus enter a tour or match contract, but it is temporary agreement that requires the player to be a part of the team first.
smssia0112
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
Yes, hence why they were able to tell Shaun Tait not to play in the IPL this year, because they didn't want him to risk an injury. Of course now they have no power over Tait.
smssia0112
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
I don't really like the guy considering his pathetic attitude towards cricket but he couldn't bowl worse than Lee.
