Central contracts

[Moss]

I agree with you about Plunkett. There are a few who've leapfrogged him now.

[pie_chucker]

And rightly so IMO. Anyone who has watched him (or Onions for that matter) bowl for Durham knows he produces 2 types of figures from a spell - either 5 0 40 0 or 9 4 15 4 , sometimes in the same match. This shows that there is talent there but he is still too inconsistant.

In the short term (over the winter) i think that Sidebottom will do a job. If he can bowl like say Vaas in SL he'll be fine and i would expect him to make the most of the movement likely to be on offer in NZ.

[Speedboy Salesman]

Like everybody else on here, I think Giles, Jones and Trescothick should all be dropped. Giles and Jones should be replaced with Sidebottom and Anderson. At the moment, England don't need a 2nd spinner, Panesar is fine, with Vaughan and Pietersen to back him up. Now Harmison, I'm not sure....he has tested the nerves of many an England fan over the past year, has been rather expensive. But on the other hand he has got wickets when England needed them, and has bowled through good sessions, however he seems to have an off and on switch in terms of bowling well, and I would be tempted to send him back to Durham for a year. Then if he has improved again, he can come back to the side for the Ashes contest he oh so dearly wants to play in. As terms for the last place, I would give it to someone like Bopara.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Moss

These are the current holders of central contracts, due to expire soon[...]

Obviously the list needs a shake up,[...] so who would you see receive a 12 month contract?

The answer is none Moss - most of this bunch where on the end of a thrashing in Australia - the "World Cup" - the one day series against the West Indies, and now a defeat against India.

Scrap the central contracts IMO, and make players get into the side on merit, very few from the list you provided would do that.

[Speedboy Salesman]

Originally Posted by Ernest

very few from the list you provided would do that.

In that case then, there would be no England side.

[Rachael]

I believe Pakistan have 3 levels of contract... and I'd like to see at least a 2 level system over here:

Top level: automatic full contracts (for both Tests AND ODIs):

Michael Vaughan
Paul Collingwood
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Bell
Alastair Cook
Matthew Hoggard
Ryan Sidebottom
Monty Panesar

Mid Level: qualified contracts (subject to conditions, only 6 for months):

Andrew Flintoff (subject to a medical indicating realistic prospects of 20+ overs per day, or ODI only)
Ashley Giles (subject to a medical indicating realistic prospects of 20+ overs per day)
Andrew Strauss (not for ODIs)
Steve Harmison (not for ODIs)
Chris Tremlett *not for ODIs)
Ravi Bopara (ODI only)

I'd like to see recognition of Joyce, Shah, Compton, Foster, Davies, Mustard, Rashid and Broad.. but see no sense in offering them central contracts at this stage.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Speedboy Salesman

In that case then, there would be no England side.

No - not at all, getting rid of central contracts won't mean there would be no Englanf team, in fact England managed without them for decades.

Flintoff - may or may not get fit.

Trescothick - has said he does not want to tour

Vaughan - had a terrible World Cup, and has done little since his return IMO.

Harmison gets home sick

Most of the bowlers are erratic, and the top order order is fragile, as this test showed.

It's hard to say at the moment who would deserve a central contract, so do away with them and pick the players who have played best for the counties, and past GOOD form for England.

Central Contracts IMO make players complacent, what does it matter if they play well or not - they still get paid, that takes away IMO a certain amount of incentive
EDIT: PS to Rachael.

I can see your point over Flintoff - but you are being selective, has Vaughan's injury kept him out of more matches than Flintoff/, how many times has Vaughan broke down.
Neither IMO shoud get a contract - in fact any players who might break down should only play on a when available basis.

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Vaughan - had a terrible World Cup, and has done little since his return IMO.

You're hard to please Ern, he's averaging 61 since his return from injury in Tests, and Vaughan's never really been a one day player anyway!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by adamberry

You're hard to please Ern, he's averaging 61 since his return from injury in Tests,[...] and Vaughan's never really been a one day player anyway!

Most of that average must have come from playing the West Indies, pluss his one big innings, and if he is not a one day players adam, then one wonders why he has played - and took the wages.

I am not saying get rid of Vaughan adam, i just don't think he (like Flintoff) at the present moment should be offered a contract. That also goes for the other fragile players.

[Speedboy Salesman]

Originally Posted by adamberry

You're hard to please Ern, he's averaging 61 since his return from injury in Tests, and Vaughan's never really been a one day player anyway!

*cough* Bell *cough*

But seriously the "chop and change" just before central contracts forced a lot of good players to be cast aside.

I agree that central contracts promote complacency, but hey, we won the Ashes back with central contracts. If we didn't have them, pretty much the entire squad would've been dropped.