<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>  
twenty2guns
(Login twenty2guns)

Some numbers

September 17 2016, 4:18 PM 

Off the 11 players who get the "full monty", Morgan only plays ODI's and IT20's and of the other 10, 5 have played very little for England over the period (October '15 - September '16) due to poor form and/or injury.

 
 
Guest
(Login edthefed)

Re: Some numbers

September 18 2016, 9:21 AM 

Nice work if you can get it....Ian Bell

 
 
Geoff B
(Login Coastalview)

It has to be the player

September 18 2016, 9:53 AM 

I keep checking for a press release to say that JB will be allowed to play but time is running out and it doesn't look like it will happen.

My gut feeling is that if the players really pressed to be allowed to play they would be made available.

Perhaps a large part of the reason is that if they played they would be on another hiding to nothing. Both players came in for T20's finals day and didn't exactly set the world alight, nor did JB manage to get us to a Lords final.

Setting them up to come in like superhero's to win us the CC would be putting a lot of pressure on a couple of mere mortals. Pressure they might feel they can do without as their focus is quite rightly on England at this stage of their careers.

We do have the players available to get us a 24 point win if the weather and the pitch allows.

Hope we back our bowlers and put Middlesex in to bat whatever the pitch looks like.

 
 
JG
(Login _JG_)

Re: It has to be the player

September 18 2016, 11:40 AM 

There is no confusion, the PCA website quite clearly sets it out. The website that you posted is not even capable of getting basic grammar correct so hardly surprising that it doesn't accurately describe the system (and in fact even contradicts itself on a couple of occasions.)

 
 

Alex
(Premier Login AlexRoberts)
Owner

Non sequitur

September 18 2016, 1:02 PM 

While I don't want to engage in another tedious game of one-upmanship with you JG, whether or not a website contains grammar errors is not necessarily an indication of the veracity of the information the site presents. In debating circles we refer to that type of reasoning as a non sequitur.

Besides, other websites confirm the data I present.
""

 
 

Alex
(Premier Login AlexRoberts)
Owner

Re: Non sequitur

September 18 2016, 1:11 PM 

The original Cricinfo item dealing with the ECB's decision on player availability for the Championship push. The blog comments that follow are worth a read:

Cricinfo

""

 
 

WRF
(Premier Login AlexRoberts)
Owner

The Club's stement re. Jonny Biarstow

September 18 2016, 1:32 PM 

— 18 September 2016

The Yorkshire County Cricket Club would like to express its disappointment after the ECB refused the Club’s request for Jonny Bairstow to participate in the final Specsavers County Championship fixture of the season.

Yorkshire Members, supporters and other stakeholders in the game will wonder why this permission has been refused. Having been rested for 16 days since he last played for England, Bairstow said he felt refreshed and wanted to play for Yorkshire against Middlesex at Lord’s, where the Club has the opportunity of winning three successive County Championships, a feat last achieved almost 50 years ago.

Although not a centrally contracted player for the last 12 months, Yorkshire required clearance from the ECB to play Bairstow. The Club’s Director of Cricket Martyn Moxon contacted the England hierarchy, but has been refused permission to play Bairstow by Director of England Cricket Andrew Strauss and England coach Trevor Bayliss.

Moxon works closely with England due to the fact that six players from Yorkshire have represented their country regularly over the last 12 months. Bayliss’ approach has been to see how the player feels, and this was respected when Bairstow said that he needed a rest after the Royal London One-Day Series. To put matters into context, other centrally contracted players who are soon to tour Bangladesh and India with England, have been allowed to represent their county in critical matches.

Bairstow has played five days of cricket in five weeks since the Kia Oval Test match, which finished on Sunday August 14.
""

 
 
JG
(Login _JG_)

Re: The Club's stement re. Jonny Biarstow

September 18 2016, 1:48 PM 

The fact that Bairstow has said that feels ready to play and that the club have made this request to the ECB makes a big difference to this debate. At least we know that the club have done what they can rather than just lying down as some have suggested on here- perhaps Nixon's relationship with Strauss et al isn't as good as he thought it was though. I think the England coaching team's management of the individual player is wrong in this instance- that doesn't amount to a conspiracy against Yorkshire but does again show the lack of respect that the ECB has for their domestic competitions.

 
 

Guest
(Login dpressed)

Re: The Club's stement re. Jonny Biarstow

September 18 2016, 1:48 PM 

I hope the 'we love England's crowd have read the above and now understand why some of us consider them to be the enemy. Basically they have taken one of our players and even though he wants to play said no. Why don't they just come clean & say we don't care about the county who've given us so many players. Or do they want someone else to win the Championship?

 
 
Leg Glance
(Login legglance)

Re: The Club's stement re. Jonny Biarstow

September 18 2016, 1:56 PM 

Why do so many want to shy away from the conspiracy argument. Is it the gentlemanly thing, the right thing?

Look at the evidence-

the player wants to play, he is fit and raring to go

other players who have played more cricket recently have been allowed to play

Yorkshire have made a specific request for JB to be allowed to play

it has been refused but no specific, credible reasons have been given.

an opposition player has been allowed to playunder similar circumstances(Finn)


Call me what you wish but, if it's not a conspiracy then I'm struggling to find any logical reason why Jb's not allowed to play, based on the above.




 
 
Guest
(Login seenemgiven)

Re: The Club's stement re. Jonny Biarstow

September 18 2016, 2:06 PM 

This stinks to high heaven.

 
 

WRF
(Premier Login AlexRoberts)
Owner

We did contact the YCCC

September 18 2016, 2:15 PM 

You should know that the WRF contacted the YCCC several days ago on the Bairstow issue, and we sent along the link to the "We need to talk about Jonny" thread. We did hear back from the club (alhough not from Mr. Arthur).

However, we would like to congratulate Mr. Arthur and the YCCC for doing the right thing and formally requesting that Jonny Bairstow be released for the vital Championship match against Middlesex. Good on you, Sir! Shame on the ECB!

Alex
""


    
This message has been edited by AlexRoberts on Sep 18, 2016 2:44 PM


 
 
Guest
(Login sooty-yorkie1)

Re: We did contact the YCCC

September 18 2016, 2:19 PM 

Whether you agree or disagree, it's nice to see a statement from the club that says what it thinks rather than some bland corporate statement.

 
 
Leg Glance
(Login legglance)

Re: We did contact the YCCC

September 18 2016, 2:54 PM 

True Sooty.

The strength of that staement, after it has been through PR sanitisation, reflects the anger and frustration felt, and quite right tooo.

 
 
Guest
(Login Jacobus24)

Re: We did contact the YCCC

September 18 2016, 3:14 PM 

Michael Vaughan is normally one of the first to comment regarding stories in cricket, so far he's gone very quiet.

 
 
Guest
(Login EastYorkshireTyke)

Re: We did contact the YCCC

September 18 2016, 3:20 PM 

Where is the Yorkshire reply to the email you sent Alex?

I'm away from my desktop at the moment, and don't have a copy on my mobile. I'll post my email request when I get home. I should say that Mr. Arthur has effectively answered my questions via his press release.

Alex


    
This message has been edited by AlexRoberts on Sep 18, 2016 3:31 PM


 
 
Peter
(Login Blackpooltyke)

Re: We did contact the YCCC

September 18 2016, 5:04 PM 

Something here smells awfully fishy to me.

Someone is not quite being truthful i think.

Surely if jonny wanted to play and the club requested he be allowed to play and given the fact that he has only played a few days cricket this month, and the fact that this would be good preparation for the bangladesh tour, particularly if he is gonna play in the tests which i presume he is doing.

It then makes no sense at all for him not to play.

So my conclusion is we have not been told the whole story, or someone is telling porky pies.

Suppose jonny told the ecb he did not want to play? Would YCCC have told us that he did not want to play, even though he could play.

Much easier to say the ecb are refusing permission, perhaps they are, but might the reason be that he told the ecb he is tired and needs to rest?

Not saying this is what the situation is, its pure speculation, but it sure makes more sense then the YCCC statement.

Anybody else got any other possible explanation?

 
 
Mark Smith
(Login spikeyboy60)

Re: We did contact the YCCC

September 18 2016, 5:15 PM 

Play him and 'balloons' to the ECB !!!!!!!

 
 
Peter
(Login Blackpooltyke)

Re: We did contact the YCCC

September 18 2016, 5:39 PM 

Of course i am not familiar with jb's contracts, but i do know a bit about employment law.

jb is employed by YCCC, not the ecb.

As is Andrew Gale.

the ecb has as much authority to tell us we cannot play Gale, or Hodd or anybody else for that matter as they have to tell us we cannot play jb.

when the player becomes centrally contracted its different. They are employed by the ecb, who pay their salary (700k a year I understand) and have to do as they are told.

All the ecb can do is request us not to play him, and we have the right to refuse their request.

Therefore the YCCC statement stating that they have requested he play, but been refused permission by the ecb cannot be right.

I employ a number of hotel workers in my business, but if i were to write into their contract that they could not clean rooms on their day off for another hotel, it would make such a contract illegal, in just the same way as a certain mr bosman discovered a few years ago.

In short, the ecb have no authority to tell us what our employees can or cannot do.


    
This message has been edited by Blackpooltyke on Sep 18, 2016 5:48 PM


 
 
JG
(Login _JG_)

Re: We did contact the YCCC

September 18 2016, 5:46 PM 

Sorry Peter, but you're wrong that Bairstow doesn't have a contract with the ECB- he has an increment contract which includes the payment of a retainer- and also wrong that employment contracts cannot have clauses stating that employees are not permitted to have other jobs- they can and many do have such clauses. Your citing of the Bosman ruling is irrelevant, that relates to the free movement of labour within the EU on the conclusion of a fixed term contract.


    
This message has been edited by _JG_ on Sep 18, 2016 5:50 PM


 
 
 
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
All IP addresses are recorded. We reserve the right to remove personal attacks, sexist, racist, homophobic, defamatory or abusive comments, comments likely to incite religious hatred, those disposed to wind others up, and unapproved advertising.

Email us: Whiterosecricket@hotmail.co.uk