Thanks for all the comments, likes and to those who emailed directly with kind words, thanks too. It's gratifying to see this has provoked a lot of chatter and commentary among yourselves - all power to that. Someone asked if there will be any more players who reject national contracts this cycle: I expect Adam Milne will decline a contract, though I can't say for certain whether that would have been a central contract or a domestic one. The likes of Tom Bruce and Doug Bracewell might also look to forego domestic contracts to be available for other opportunities, though there is an element of speculation there.
Weenink smiles and says “From our point of view this is a positive development,” while the cracks in the dam continue to multiply at an alarming but unsurprising rate. Boult was the first (NZ) sign of the looming irrelevance of international cricket, all for a format that is forgettable viewing at an international level, let alone the overhyped franchise tosh that I couldn't care less about.
People here on The Bounce clearly aren’t stupid - plenty of spin in Weenink’s comments. Fact is Kane doesn’t want a central contract and to commit fully to NZ. NZC needs to take stock of its situation of fading giants, poor results and central contracts not holding appeal to the likes of Boult & Williamson. These are strategic issues that will effect our prospects in the immediate future. What is the plan?
One of my concerns is that we don’t seem to attract top, strong minded talent into NZC board, management and coaching positions and therefore we are vulnerable to capture by influential players and the players association. What happens when those players enter their twilight years or start thinking of number one before the team? Interviews with Southee, Santner & Williamson have been replete with lines about how “experienced” the team is but they were up against “strong” Windies & Afghan teams. What rubbish. NZ should be backing itself to beat both.
Looking back on a disastrous T20 WC is a case in point. Having been knocked out after two games we still rolled out Tim Southee against PNG and Uganda. With the greatest of redirect they were club teams. Why not give Ben Sears a game? For that matter why not give him a game against Afghan or the Windies either. Just no forward planning. If I was a young guy knocking on the door I’d be furious at the opportunities afforded to Southee after he clearly illustrated he’s going down the other side. And yet reports suggest NZC might consider offering him a casual contract because he is “special” but he prefers a central contract!! Really? The question is whether he’s worth one....
Can’t recall NZC being in this big a pickle since Cape Town 2013.
Completely disagree with your comments about Southee. He was picked on merit and performed accordingly. You could, perhaps, critique the decision if he had played poorly, but that was not the case. Unlike the mercenary Boult, Southee has remained fiercely loyal to NZC and deserves to play if performing well.
Fair enough. But Southee took 5 of his 7 wickets against PNG & Uganda who were club quality. Boult bullied the little guys too but is second highest wicket taker at the WC. I was reflecting more broadly on Southee, including his flat form in the home summer.
The Future Tours program says we're hosting Sri Lanka and Pakistan for 3x3 (ODIs and T20s) from January, then a tri series ODI series against Pakistan and SA before the Champions Trophy in late Feb.
My initial response is that I can’t decide whether this is good or bad from a NZ cricket perspective but it feels inevitable. How long before the owners of the big franchises dictate where players go and whether they release them for international duty?
From a red ball captaincy perspective, I hope they do some succession planning for Southee’s successor because at 35 he can’t have more than a couple of years left (though it’s not like we play the large number of tests that India, England and Australia do).
Won't jump at shadows and say this is the beginning of the end, but it is certainly disappointing that international cricket has got to a point where a guy like Kane - our captain - is turning down a central contract.
Weenink can say it's a positive development all he wants, but all I see is another boost in power for franchises over country. And another step back for New Zealand, which is the only 'major nation' that does not have a franchise T20 competition of any substance.
And Weenink is kidding himself if he says selection preference has been given to contracted players. That is absolute nonsense.
I hope you’re right but the direction of travel is bleak. All the money is in T20 and as tournaments lengthen and multiply, that’s where the players will go. I think the only hope for test cricket is one where a funding pool is created by ICC to pay salaries of test players of all nations. This might stem the flow fir a bit
Need to think outside the box a little on the franchise question- could NZ have a team or two in the Big Bash or even the SA league to help create more pathways for NZ cricketers beyond the current model- a la the Breakers, Warriors etc
Or we go all out for the money and get India or UAE to bankroll it to be a worthwhile comp? We have nice grounds, decent weather and could mould 8 franchises with the right money. I mean it would still be niche compared to IPL but if you could attract a few big names with big money it'd quickly become the cricket event of summer. Much better than half arsed tours
This is all pretty depressing so I've begun to wonder what an ideal future looks like that's not unrealistic. Feels like you have a bunch of major franchise comps, ICC finally does a deal to carve out 3 international windows a year for tests, ODI game dies and there's the occasional international T20 cup.
These are great Qs. You’ve led me to thinking that as franchise cricket has slowly but surely muscled in over the last 10 years especially we have been really fortunate to have a really good national side that kept the traditional international game relevant in NZ. But what happens if we continue deteriorating? Is there a risk that the sheen goes off the BCs for the players themselves and a self reinforcing cycle of decline sets in? This is surely a greater risk here in NZ than it is in other countries....NZC have been clever with their flexible approach to player availability, but will it be enough going forward? Weenink suggests that playing for the BCs still has exposure value for the players. That’s true now, but will it still if we continue our slide down the rankings?
Been thinking about this. Hard one to answer. It’s the best of an ordinary bunch. Possibly Chch. Hagley Oval is a passable venue and the academy is down the road. I visited the Victorian Cricket High Performance Centre in Feb, and it doubles as the hub for both the Melbourne Stars & Rebels. The quality of the facilities, the money dripping off everything and the incredible grounds (plural) in the vicinity makes anywhere in NZ look like a backwater by comparison. Junction Oval (right next to the hub) is basically the headquarters of the St Kilda Cricket Club - it hosts women’s cricket and premier club, but hardly anything else. It is a superior venue to say University Oval in Dunedin.
Most obviously Auckland, particularly given the large immigrant population. Ideally they'd have a proper cricket ground, but I guess with it being T20, no one's going to quibble if top edges go for six.
Hi all
Thanks for all the comments, likes and to those who emailed directly with kind words, thanks too. It's gratifying to see this has provoked a lot of chatter and commentary among yourselves - all power to that. Someone asked if there will be any more players who reject national contracts this cycle: I expect Adam Milne will decline a contract, though I can't say for certain whether that would have been a central contract or a domestic one. The likes of Tom Bruce and Doug Bracewell might also look to forego domestic contracts to be available for other opportunities, though there is an element of speculation there.
Weenink smiles and says “From our point of view this is a positive development,” while the cracks in the dam continue to multiply at an alarming but unsurprising rate. Boult was the first (NZ) sign of the looming irrelevance of international cricket, all for a format that is forgettable viewing at an international level, let alone the overhyped franchise tosh that I couldn't care less about.
People here on The Bounce clearly aren’t stupid - plenty of spin in Weenink’s comments. Fact is Kane doesn’t want a central contract and to commit fully to NZ. NZC needs to take stock of its situation of fading giants, poor results and central contracts not holding appeal to the likes of Boult & Williamson. These are strategic issues that will effect our prospects in the immediate future. What is the plan?
One of my concerns is that we don’t seem to attract top, strong minded talent into NZC board, management and coaching positions and therefore we are vulnerable to capture by influential players and the players association. What happens when those players enter their twilight years or start thinking of number one before the team? Interviews with Southee, Santner & Williamson have been replete with lines about how “experienced” the team is but they were up against “strong” Windies & Afghan teams. What rubbish. NZ should be backing itself to beat both.
Looking back on a disastrous T20 WC is a case in point. Having been knocked out after two games we still rolled out Tim Southee against PNG and Uganda. With the greatest of redirect they were club teams. Why not give Ben Sears a game? For that matter why not give him a game against Afghan or the Windies either. Just no forward planning. If I was a young guy knocking on the door I’d be furious at the opportunities afforded to Southee after he clearly illustrated he’s going down the other side. And yet reports suggest NZC might consider offering him a casual contract because he is “special” but he prefers a central contract!! Really? The question is whether he’s worth one....
Can’t recall NZC being in this big a pickle since Cape Town 2013.
Completely disagree with your comments about Southee. He was picked on merit and performed accordingly. You could, perhaps, critique the decision if he had played poorly, but that was not the case. Unlike the mercenary Boult, Southee has remained fiercely loyal to NZC and deserves to play if performing well.
Fair enough. But Southee took 5 of his 7 wickets against PNG & Uganda who were club quality. Boult bullied the little guys too but is second highest wicket taker at the WC. I was reflecting more broadly on Southee, including his flat form in the home summer.
NO HOME CRICKET BETWEEN JANUARY 10 AND FEBRUARY 10?!
That sucks so bad :-(
The Future Tours program says we're hosting Sri Lanka and Pakistan for 3x3 (ODIs and T20s) from January, then a tri series ODI series against Pakistan and SA before the Champions Trophy in late Feb.
Hope that's the case- said in the newsletter nothing between those dates...
My initial response is that I can’t decide whether this is good or bad from a NZ cricket perspective but it feels inevitable. How long before the owners of the big franchises dictate where players go and whether they release them for international duty?
From a red ball captaincy perspective, I hope they do some succession planning for Southee’s successor because at 35 he can’t have more than a couple of years left (though it’s not like we play the large number of tests that India, England and Australia do).
Top work on the exclusive Dylan.
I second Tanya's sentiment around the exclusive. Who's the as-yet-unnamed third player who's going to turn down a central contract?
As long as he plays Test Cricket, I’m a happy camper.
Won't jump at shadows and say this is the beginning of the end, but it is certainly disappointing that international cricket has got to a point where a guy like Kane - our captain - is turning down a central contract.
Weenink can say it's a positive development all he wants, but all I see is another boost in power for franchises over country. And another step back for New Zealand, which is the only 'major nation' that does not have a franchise T20 competition of any substance.
And Weenink is kidding himself if he says selection preference has been given to contracted players. That is absolute nonsense.
Correct. Trent Boult case in point. He certainly merits selection but he played all four games while various contracted players didn’t.
I hope you’re right but the direction of travel is bleak. All the money is in T20 and as tournaments lengthen and multiply, that’s where the players will go. I think the only hope for test cricket is one where a funding pool is created by ICC to pay salaries of test players of all nations. This might stem the flow fir a bit
Unpaid volunteers are “incredible servants” of the game.
Highly paid, famous professional players with lucrative endorsement deals and myriad other opportunities are not “servants”.
Sorry to be pedantic but I have always found this phrase to be highly annoying!
Need to think outside the box a little on the franchise question- could NZ have a team or two in the Big Bash or even the SA league to help create more pathways for NZ cricketers beyond the current model- a la the Breakers, Warriors etc
Or we go all out for the money and get India or UAE to bankroll it to be a worthwhile comp? We have nice grounds, decent weather and could mould 8 franchises with the right money. I mean it would still be niche compared to IPL but if you could attract a few big names with big money it'd quickly become the cricket event of summer. Much better than half arsed tours
This is all pretty depressing so I've begun to wonder what an ideal future looks like that's not unrealistic. Feels like you have a bunch of major franchise comps, ICC finally does a deal to carve out 3 international windows a year for tests, ODI game dies and there's the occasional international T20 cup.
These are great Qs. You’ve led me to thinking that as franchise cricket has slowly but surely muscled in over the last 10 years especially we have been really fortunate to have a really good national side that kept the traditional international game relevant in NZ. But what happens if we continue deteriorating? Is there a risk that the sheen goes off the BCs for the players themselves and a self reinforcing cycle of decline sets in? This is surely a greater risk here in NZ than it is in other countries....NZC have been clever with their flexible approach to player availability, but will it be enough going forward? Weenink suggests that playing for the BCs still has exposure value for the players. That’s true now, but will it still if we continue our slide down the rankings?
Good suggestion. Looking at the quality of the SS versus BB I think we’d have to start with one team.
If we got a franchise where would you base it?
Been thinking about this. Hard one to answer. It’s the best of an ordinary bunch. Possibly Chch. Hagley Oval is a passable venue and the academy is down the road. I visited the Victorian Cricket High Performance Centre in Feb, and it doubles as the hub for both the Melbourne Stars & Rebels. The quality of the facilities, the money dripping off everything and the incredible grounds (plural) in the vicinity makes anywhere in NZ look like a backwater by comparison. Junction Oval (right next to the hub) is basically the headquarters of the St Kilda Cricket Club - it hosts women’s cricket and premier club, but hardly anything else. It is a superior venue to say University Oval in Dunedin.
Most obviously Auckland, particularly given the large immigrant population. Ideally they'd have a proper cricket ground, but I guess with it being T20, no one's going to quibble if top edges go for six.
Going to become the norm, I guess. Players will fit internationals in around their more important commitments