Cricket has an opportunity to solve a major problem thanks to coronavirus

Gotcha, I scrubbed Gayle for my point, as he had a fairly full international career. I see your point, no doubt been discussed in the boardroom, though I reckon CA would shoot themselves in the foot if they were that bloody minded, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. You’d have to reckon it would be a naive player agent allowing that in a modern contract, nothing to stop them from making up some inane reason not to pick an uncontracted player, just to be vindictive or set an example.

I was thinking more in terms of CA pressuring leagues NOT to let Aussie guys play unless that guy agrees to make themselves available to play for Australia, as & when CA decides. Chris Gayle was the other name I was thinking of. It's probably a bit different in the Windies, given the relatively small amounts they receive from their Board, but our top guys are on top dollars, so I could well imagine a vindictive CA doing all it could to stop a bloke from playing in any of the Leagues if he refused to play for his country.

'Right thing' is a traditional notion. The recent advent of lucrative options has changed the playing field. From the outside we can say good on Rashid for making the most of his talent and finite playing career, especially as Afghanistan doesn't have a crowded international playing schedule and 140 years of national Test cricket tradition beckoning him to the pinnacle. Right now we may have teenagers in the rep system who want to emulate Smith, Perry, Healy and Labuschange's Test exploits, but there's likely a large number of 8 - 12 year olds who think Lynn and Rashid have the best cricketing life and they are only exposed to their franchise exploits. Ironically that's a situation of CA 's own branding and hype which may ultimately force them into wholesale contract changes.

The international precedent is set with Keiran Pollard. Would a national setup be able to resist the excellent form of a T20 mercenary with International World Cups up for grabs? Better still would they resist the negative publicity from the trashmedia for not using eligible assets, just because they won't sign restrictive contracts?

That's a really interesting point about the conflict between playing for Australia and making X, or playing for an IPL team and perhaps making X squared! I wonder just how far CA might go, if a player refuses a central contract and makes it clear they're only in it for the money? That is, they'll play Club cricket to stay fit, but will only get involved in the BBL, IPL, etc, even though they might be a critical piece in Australia's short form teams. Could CA stop them from playing BBL for example, then "suggest" to the BCCI that it would not be good for that guy to be playing in the IPL?

True Paul, I have it on fairly good info that Langer was none too pleased with a high profile white ball contracted player informing him that he wouldn’t make himself available for the SA ODI tour as he was going to have an existing injury operated on. Langer called him out on why then and not during April, wouldn’t have anything to do with a massive IPL contract perhaps? Apparently it became fairly heated. You certainly can see centrally contracted players having to make assertions for availability or contracts becoming null or reduced rates. Of course the players can also say they’ll waive the central contract and take their chances on international selection based on form and negotiate payment. That may also suit players as to other restrictions which come with CA contracts like having to do pressers and having a muzzle with code of conduct. Interesting as to how changes may occur.

It's going to be a massive hit to the domestic leagues and players worldwide, especially in the UK and the clubs.

You're right, but that tournament should've been played in January and the Indian series scrapped. However the players who're in major contention and contracted knew it was on. They still signed IPL contracts for a coupla weeks later. No doubt a few were signed up for the Pommy Blast and Hundred 'preparing' for the T20 World Cup in our next summer! Those decisions have ramifications for both parties.

They have a million backroomers supporting them. There's surely an expectation though that a contracted player be fit mentally for the schedule they are contracted for. If a player says he wants or needs a break from centrally contracted games because he's mentally exhausted due to HIS schedule which includes a number of T20 comps, then surely the main employer has a right to say fair enough, when you're ready you tell us and we'll let you know if you're required and when your contract review is.

I'm sure you're right but the focus of this piece was on those who are playing "round the clock" cricket, which is mostly the top line players

In the grand scheme of things, they don't play that much compared to other sports. A cricketer plays fewer days per year than a baseball player. Jockeys are on the horses extremely often. Play to get paid. That's the life of a professional.

Pie in the sky question. You just can't increase a central contact. You need the revenue to do so.

Paul, I think this extends well beyond the top-line CA contracted players.

More than likely with the way CV-19 will impact India, the BCCI is going to find itself in a desperate situation very quickly re financial underpinnings. It is very much a financial house of cards. CV-19 has barely taken hold in India, but it will, and the results will sadly be devastating and impactful for some time. Any smart Indian capital will be looking for safe havens off-shore, specifically low-sovereign risk, in the near-term I suspect. The BCCI will be materially hit financially IMO.

Agree Marty. And when we start talking about players that *could* nominate for the IPL, how few of the cricketing community are we actually talking about? Cricket is so much more than just the two dozen or so *name* players in the country.

Which cricketers are we talking about here? The very few on 100k+ CA contracts (though confirmation of next season's lucky few are on hold) or State based FC cricketers earning not much? Or those cricketers trying to get a State contract? For the latter two, if they are in the same boat as most of the rest of us - worrying whether wages/salary or payments into the business will come through, whilst managing depletion of partner's income (for those that have partners) or trying to balance work with home-schooling (amplified for those with childern but now separated from partners); the sentiment of cricketers just having some time off with feet up on the couch and associated mental release is a nice one. Not sure how accurately it matches the reality for 95%+ of cricketers though.

I started to follow cricket from 1977; as my dad introduced me to cricket. 1977 is a very critical year for cricket, as Mr .Packer changed the game for ever. Back in the 70's or even in early 80's even a top player from Ind or Pak would earn little playing cricket in their country-some would play in eng or elsewhere. Also, in some cases Banks or organization like PIA offered jobs for the to players; most of the time it would PRO type job .The case players not near the top was even worse. I am really surprised many Aus top players had to do simultaneous job run their family. Now thanks to Tv the problem has been largely solved. Yes, but two things annoy me; too much cricket means often matches lose context. And secondly many cricket matches specially events like IPL has become WWE type entertainment; when cricket's sporting value is undermined. I can recall Ind vs Aus 5th test 1978 quite viidly- i don't much of IPL action over the last decade or so. Keeping a balance is not easy.