Central Contracts - Time For A Review?

Here is an article I wrote on my blog site recently, regarding the use of central contracts and the effects they may be having upon the English game:

The inception of the central contract system in 2000, brought in to lighten the workload of key England players and therefore reduce the chance of injuries, has coincided with a significant upturn in the fortunes of the English national side. Testament to that is their current occupation of the world number one Test rankings.

Whilst the national side has reaped the benefits afforded by central contracts, it could be argued that they have been to the detriment of the English county game. Indeed such is the rigidity of the central contract system now that a county which is home to an England regular can be considered lucky to see their charge make just a handful of appearances throughout the course of a season.

English county cricket is a tough game for the money men, with the financial structure of many counties flimsy at best. Poor attendances are just one problem to contend with, and it serves to raise the question as to whether these would be significantly improved were the star players of the counties, namely the England regulars, to turn out more often. The central contract system was introduced for this very purpose, to reduce the workload of the England stars, and for that reason there is unlikely to be a change any time soon.

Frank Keating, a sports writer at The Guardian, summed up the current situation when saying "it is now a pointless exercise, unwatched, unwanted, serviced by mostly blinkered, greedy chairman-bullied committees and played by mostly unknown foreign and second-rate mercenaries". Whilst this may be a little harsh, as anyone that watches the County Championship will know it still contains a great deal of very promising young English prospects, it does highlight the perceived fall in overall quality that will inevitably come as a result of removing the countries top players from the scene.

"For the county game it has taken a lot away in terms of the bowling quality. Years ago you had two overseas professionals, plus the England bowlers but now that has been removed by central contracts as you rarely see the England bowlers playing county cricket, which has diminished the quality somewhat," says recently retired ex-England and Leicestershire wicket-keeper Paul Nixon during a recent discussion.

Former England fast bowler Angus Fraser reinforces those sentiments. "Before, there was a different mentality: I was a Middlesex player who was released to play for England and when my Middlesex duties finished, I was straight back to Middlesex." Issues of bowlers not getting sufficient 'game time' have surfaced and as one reporter put it, "central contracts have helped most of England's cricketers, but not young bowlers who need to develop strategies from playing in matches, not in the nets."

Undeniably, the opportunity for the aforementioned prospects of the English game to regularly face Test match quality bowling from the likes of James Anderson, Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann would be a valuable learning curve and assist in their readiness to make the step up to Test level. As it stands, the first time young batsmen face such a quality of bowling is often upon their International debut.

Central contracts, it must be remembered, can also have a negative effect upon those batsmen that are bound to them and are intended to benefit from them, with Alastair Cook being a prime example. In the 2010 home Test series against Pakistan Cook's technique was exposed time and again by the prodigious swing of Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif. Had Cook spent time in the middle for his county side Essex in the swinging conditions of an early English summer, he may well have had chance to iron out such flaws.

It is argued in some quarters that the point of the English County Championship competition as a whole is to provide and nurture players for the national side, and this is a concept that has certainly become more prominent in recent years. This, however, is a view that I entirely disagree with. Surely we should have a national team forged upon the high quality, competitive cricket of our domestic competition, as opposed to using it as a training ground for the next generation of hopefuls? The cricket they play should be tough, uncompromising and mentally challenging in equal measures to ensure that once they do get that international call-up, they are ready.

There can be no doubting that in the decade since their introduction, central contracts have played a huge hand in providing a fit, fresh and successful England team. What we have seen, however, is a dwindling interest and reduction in quality of the domestic game as a direct consequence of that success. At present there is no cause for concern, but a question that must be asked is that in a further ten years from now, will this lower standard in the domestic game begin impacting upon the quality of player that is produced as a by-product?

The answer to such a question only time can tell, however it may be prudent of the ECB to try and strike a balance between the two going forward. An ideal scenario would be one in which centrally contracted players still give something back to the county game, increasing the quality and popularity simultaneously, whilst priming their own technique against a swinging ball.

In their infancy central contracts were the proverbial sat-nav, setting England well on course for becoming the number one side in the world. Now that they have reached their destination, it may just be time to relax the grip on some of those that hold them, for the good of the English county game and the potential harm it may be doing in the long run.

What are your thoughts on the issue, guys?

Central Contracts have been a great idea overall, but they've had a serious effect on both the county game and the players themselves, Pietersen for example, barely played in the CC while he was at Hampshire.

There should be a stipulation in the Central Contracts that each player has to be available to their county for a set amount of days per season (eg a minimum of 16), it would then be up to each county and the ECB to work out when these days would be at the start of every season.

Also, as each player has individual needs when it comes to training, the contract needs to be a bit more flexible, somer bowlers need to be playing as regularly as possible to hone their action and maintain consistency, while others clearly improve with as much rest as possible.
As for the batsmen, many need to play as often as possible to keep their eye in and baring freak injuries, a few extra days play shouldn't have a detrimental impact on their quality of play as an international, nor their longevity.

Yeah you're pretty much thinking along the same lines as me, ReallyReal.

I don't buy that batsmen need too much rest. I'm not saying work them to death, but a few days rest should surely be enough for a batsman to recover, though obviously the mental side of things may need to be taken into account by people more knowledgeable in that field than myself.

You make a good point about bowlers. Someone like Andrew Flintoff could have a long layoff but return and be just as fast and just as accurate as he ever was. It is noticeable with others however that they take a while to get back into the groove, so I guess it is a case of assessing each individual.

Central contracts have allowed great things to happen in the English game, but in my mind they really are beginning to over-do it somewhat at present, and for the reasons mentioned in my article it may just be time to alter that slightly, at the risk of leaving our future players somewhat undercooked.

It has to be player specific for me. At the start of every summer, Andy Flower should sit down with the selectors and just see how much cricket all the players, especially those in the Test side have played that year. If you have some people like Swann or Pietersen who don't need much county cricket to perform and are playing in all of England's sides they should only play when they want to and are needed as we don't want to burn them out. I don't believe in them playing for their counties for loyalty, as they aren't paid by their counties. They are paid to play for England, that should be their priority.

Obviously some people need to play more cricket than others. Steve Harmison springs to mind, so these players should play more but it should be very player specific and targetted at maximising performance. Would Steven Finn be bowling as fast as he is now if he had played for Middlesex last year instead of getting strengthened and conditioned? Who knows.

Well Finn is, thus far, an example of how taking some time out to work on various things can be of benefit - in his case adding a good 6 or 7 mph to his stock ball, which is an incredible feat in such a short space of time.

I think you've pretty much nailed it in terms of managing player workload, however what are your views in respect of the popularity of the county game?

Not too fussed about the county game to be honest Fists. Never been a huge follower of it. I will watch the one day stuff when it is on Sky and I will keep up with how Somerset are going but I wouldn't say I am an avid follower of it so my views may be distorted by this.

In my opinion, county cricket should just be a means to an ends. That ends being a good quality England side and that should take priority over county cricket. If you have to sacrifice the quality, and then maybe the popularity to get a good England side then so be it.

I don't know this, but how much revenue can a county get from four day attendences? Not much in the grand scheme of things. I would imagine that the most of it comes from T20 games? If this is the case, I would change the rules so sides can play three overseas players in the T20 tournament and this will keep the quality high whilst ensuring people will come and watch it so maintaining good revenue for the counties. Obviously still one player from overseas in the CC and CB40 which are more geared towards bringing through English players.

Then if we have to sacrifice some popularity of the CC to keep a strong England side, I would say this is fine. As most casual viewers will only watch England play, if England are strong it will encourage them to watch more cricket which will increase the popularity of county cricket. So it is cyclical, if England are made strong by doing what is best for them then it will interest more people in cricket and get more people watching county cricket.

I see what you're saying, but my real issue is say ten years down the line. If the players coming through are facing an overall lower quality of cricket then there is a possibility that it will affect the England side in terms of the pool of players not being equipped to play at the highest level, if you get my meaning.

I do understand that point of viewm but I still think that the standard of cricket in Division 1 is very good. Look at Bairstow, Buttler, Stokes, Taylor etc. they have all come through facing this standard of bowling and their is always going to be a step up between county cricket and international cricket and not everyone will make it, but I don't think that a slight decrease on the quality of county cricket will have much affect on it.

This is where journeyman cricketers are useful. People like Jon Lewis, Graham Onions, Liam Plunkett and whoever (Bit harsh calling Onions a journeyman maybe). These are the sort of bowlers who when batsmen score runs against these guys who have played international cricket, you take notice. And I think this sort of level of bowler will always be around to test people for the next step.

Absence of international players in domestic cricket is not just a problem with England. In India, a cramped international schedule means the India regulars play hardly any first class cricket at the domestic level. Can't remember when did MS Dhoni last play for Jharkhand or how many matches did Sachin Tendulkar, a commited Mumbai cricketer managed to play for his side over the last 5 years.
Earlier, up to the late 90s the situation was a bit better.
It indeed is a problem in the long run, as the quality of the first class has to be maintained to produce quality international performers.
So not only the ECB, but boards across the spectrum will have to give the issue some thought.

Yeah me and you seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet on this issue, msp, and I think it may be a future problem that is being overlooked to an extent by the governing bodies of the cricketing nations that implement such contracts, owing to the fact that they are having success at the present.

An eye must also be turned to the future and the implications of these contracts studied a bit further, in my view.

First off, the influence that Central Contracts have had on the success of the England team cannot be underestimated. It's had a massive impact on managing player workloads and allowing them to stay fit and firing throughout a whole season of test cricket. I agree with what most are saying in that the amount of County Cricket each player plays should be managed on an individual basis, but so far this has worked pretty well IMO. After a long tour players are generally given a break but will play a few county games to get back up to speed. For someone like Swann for instance, there's the added point of it not being that important for him to bowl about ten overs a match on green tops in April.

Now regarding the issue FoF brings up with the lack of quality coming through, I'm not sure I agree with you here Fists. We've seen plenty of young quality players coming through the system since Central Contracts were introduced, and I believe it will continue to do so, in fact you could say it already is with the likes of Meaker, Briggs, Borthwick, Buttler, Stokes, Bairstow, etc. There's plenty of young quality about, and they're facing some good players. This is actually where having Kolpak/overseas is a good thing as it increases the quality of opposition these guys will face. On a slight tangent, Vaughan's first county match was against Lancashire, where he faced Wasim Akram, made 64, and apparently Fairbrother and Hegg both immediately agreed they'd just seen a future England player.

Now about the future of the County game, I confess that living in France means I don't follow this a huge amount, and that the lack of star quality in the CC could be a problem with dwindling attendances, etc. So for the long term survival of County Cricket I think RR's suggestion of say England players being made available for 16 days County Cricket could be a good one, but again this has to be flexible, and at the end of the day the Counties should be supporting England, and not the other way around (ie England should keep choosing when to make players available).

Just to clarify, MFC, I wasn't suggesting that the quality at this moment in time is low, but that it may start gradually dwindling if the better players are consistently kept away from county cricket.

This is more of a 'what if' article than anything else, but is food for thought nevertheless.

But my point was that Central Contracts have been in place for more than ten years now, and we've never been close to seeing a dwindling in the quality of players coming through. In fact, you could argue that because England players are no longer playing CC, the youngsters are getting more chances, and this is resulting in even more quality coming through...

A fair point, MFC, but a counter to that argument would be that if those youngsters weren't able to face Test level bowling/Test level batsmen from the start of their careers, then how would that equip them for when they get called up by England? Chances are they'd never have played against that standard, and they may fall short.

And that's a valid counter Fists, but I'd say if players are good enough they'll succeed even if they haven't faced that standard, and I'd back the selectors to make the call on who was good enough. Again, while the level of bowling in CC isn't international standard, it's not that far away, they're still some very fine bowlers there, and I'm not sure having maybe another 5 or 6 England bowlers in the whole Championship would make such a huge difference. However the argument you put forward is the exact reason why I think overseas players are a must.

Absolutely, and given that the England boys are never playing county championship cricket any more, maybe it'd be worth going back to the two overseas players per side rule of yesteryear, as that would increase quality no end, as you rightly say.

Think I'd go with the suggestion that the international players have to be available for a reasonable number of domestic first class matches. to avoid issues of player burnout and stuff, this has to be factored into scheduling.
All said and done, I have to say this seems like wishful thinking on my part as the BCCI just doesn't care unless its the IPL.

I think that suggestion is a very good one, to be honest, and it would surely be beneficial to all concerned.

England batsmen get more practice against the swinging ball.
England bowlers get more chance to groove their action and try new things.
Youngsters get to play against better players.
County cricket gets more popularity.

And all this whilst our key players are still being managed properly...bingo.

Central Contracts are fine. No need to move away from them.

I'd love to see the England players play more County Cricket. Unfortunately, the ECB would rather us play Australia as much as humanly possible and therefore there isn't enough time in the schedule. Next summer we've got 5 ODIs instead of playing another Test against South Africa or letting our players play County Cricket.

That said, it's not like we're different to other countries. Last I checked (last year), Ponting hadn't played a FC match for Tasmania for a couple of years (though I think he ended up playing one before the Ashes). Tendulkar hadn't played many FC matches for his team (though of course he had played T20). South Africa are different, but then their Test schedule is oddly short.

In terms of development of good young players, I think we have an excellent system at the moment. The Kolpak rules have been tightened and we've got the England Lions and England Performance Programme. Players are identified, trained, examined (technically and mentally) and given experience playing for effectively our second XI.

As a result, there's a long line of players that are being watched.

One thing I would like to see introduced into the CC is a rule stating that every county side must contain at least 2 under 21s (or 1 under 18 and another who's under 21, or whatever number fits best) who are eligible for England selection.
This would maintain the amount of players coming through the county game and guarantee that good youngsters get as much experience, at as young an age as possible, against the best the county circuit has to offer.
It would also ensure that promising players and their counties, see that the ECB does value the CC as a breeding ground for future international players

Another fine idea, reallyreal. I think that could reap huge rewards in terms of high quality youngsters becoming attuned to a high level of cricket so early on.

There may be some failures, but it'd be the same for every team, and those that showed they could swim rather than sink would speak volumes about their potential in an England shirt for the future.