Tuesday, 28 June 2011

DTW Open letter to CA

Guys, we have begrudged CA's inability to hear the common man/fan/player and stated that they will do what they want regardless, as they will not be told by anyone.

I've sooked but i didn't offer an alternative... so here it is.
We at DTW TELL CA what is wrong with their system and plans and we publish it here and endeavour to get further support via a facebook page.

I propose we compose the letter by consensus. Of course with consensus comes concession, so we need to be able to work out our grievances before publishing.

Who's in for having their say?

stoph verismo


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Good thought Stoph. For my contribution, pick the eyes from http://www.thecricketragics.com/2011/01/hilly-headed-for-ditch.html

  3. Yeah that was a good one Lango.
    I'm in Stoph; I like the facebook idea - may even get cricinfo interested by doing so (not in terms of support) which could redface CA a bit. The associate sides are back in the 2015 world cup with the ICC back-flipping on their 10 team proposition now making it 14 teams - all due to, I think, public pressure.

    As much as I despise 20/20 we have to be careful labeling it as detrimental purely because we may not like it on principle. The correlation between an over-exposure or focus on this format (for example) and a decline in the performance of state players in longer forms - and by extension the national team - needs to be made carefully.

  4. thanks Lango, i'll refresh myself with that over the next few days.

    i think Lefty what you say here is very important- my bias is clear, but i have expressed an appreciation as to where i see t20 being of 'service' to cricket, so we certainly not just dismiss it outright.
    certainly my adgender IS red-facing CA... or at least trying to give them a "WAKE UP!" slap in the face. As we know it is hard to get people to drag themselves away from their FB wall long enough to visit a blog/forum, which is why a page on FB -i think- is the way to go to get numbers (think signatories) behind us. If all of us have an average of 100 friends and we post something from the page up on our own wall every couple of days we can get exposure to the majoity of our friends, they "like/comment/look" and it is up on their walls to be exposed to their friends...and we all know how much i like getting exposed! Growth has an exponential potential.

    But we need to have a target date in mind to send letter and fb link to CA; idea's?

    so, points for the letter:

    youth development?
    series development?

    it is your blank canvas guys

  5. Financial support deeper down that just the CA contracts so state players can hone their longer format skills and not get tempted by the lure of the big T20 bucks at the expense of technique and patience.
    This is the fundamental our test players are lacking in now. Patience with the swinging and turning ball.

  6. Yeah but I think that's going to put off the states who are really our ally though Nos. Commenting on a perceived inability of Aus cricketers to actually play (ie technique against good attacks) won't garner support except from people that are probably already supportive - but in the same way as crows fans are supportive of 'change' because ther side isn't winning; not because there are fundamental issues that prevent success or at least impede it.
    What some critics are saying about CA's direction and preoccupation with Big Bash is that there is even more encouragement for young players to choose wealth and short-lived fame in 20/20 because of the contract structures. You will earn far less money playing cricket for your state if you only play 4 day cricket as it is a separate contract to the big bash contract. Therefore players are tacitly encouraged to make sure they can clear the boundary from mis-hits as they will earn shit loads more.
    At a time when the national team is struggling in test cricket; especially when you look at players like Smith who are for some reason regarded as test quality, our board is obsessed with advancing short format cricket. Even if we focussed an argument on the contract structures and the impact this will likely have on our players in 5 to 10 ten years time; we are more likely to get noticed by CA or the players' association I reckon.
    Don't forget, Nos, that experienced batsmen who have played all over the world failed in shot selection for us in the recent Ashes against the moving ball. The fact that chumps like Smith are picked is a separate issue for mine. That's why I think guys like Clarke and Ponting got away fairly easy as senior players after their performance. When they should have been showing the way ala Dravid or Laxman they instead were fishing like they were at the beach! Of course England bowled very well but our boys showed such little fight (other than, Hussey and once from Haddin) that we never had a chance.

  7. At the expense of sounding too radical perhaps the answer to the declining test skills around the world is either a one day match of two separate innings of 25 overs on a day three type pitch. Or a fifty over game of one innings but smaller grounds and less fielders but still on a third day strip.
    That way the crowds get the runs, the batsmen must adjust to a pitch rather than a runway and there is something in it for the bowlers.
    I accept the way to get support is shorter formats but they MUST still maintain the fundamentals of the game they are based on.
    Skills must be preserved. I am already hearing talk of tests being shortened to four days.
    Lefty who really cares if we offend the states. If the players are not performing because of a lack of basic skills it can only be fixed at state level and to fix something it must first be identified and admitted. The states are floundering and must jump through hoops to support this crap. Meanwhile the heart and soul of the game is being whored to the highest bidder. For fuck sake CA don't' even care what the public wants. Two teams in Melbourne, who the fuck asked for that?
    CA need to get involved and must actively support the longer formats with cash garnered from the pus that is T20. Both here and the IPL. Otherwise I predict REAL cricket will be consigned to the realms of the NBL. A sideshow remembered fondly from a simpler era when the end result wasn't everything.

  8. It's not an issue of principle if we offend the states, Nos, it's an issue of strategy. Alientaing the very 'body' that can have the most impact achieves little. The states could well say 'it's not our fault the Aussie team can't bat or bowl'. While this may not be entirely true the states can only run according to the dictum that CA decrees. CA is currently using the state system as a cash cow via 20/20 at the expense of the national team's test ability. The states don't decide on contract structures; merely who gets them. It's this point that I think we have to argue; the fact that CA is putting state cricket in an untenable situation where they have no choice but to reward slap-happy crappy cricket while blokes not suited to the shorter version lose out financially. This breeds cricketers that make sure they have 20/20 style from the outset; rather than developing it once the more basic skills are well entrenched. I keep coming back to Smith; he never would have got a baggy green in the 90s irrespective of the competition for spots because his technique is rubbish.
    I think we need the states on side Nos.

  9. The states need to push back to CA and make a stand. Why not accept the money the T20 comps bring in and distribute it where it should be used. The cricketers work for the states like employees.
    "You entertain, you get a wage but in the white is where the real money is"
    That way CA gets it junk comp and the life of the game gets the real money.
    It's time for the states to stand up and make a point. If you want us to release our players for your shithouse comps then we decide where the money gets used. You pay us and we pay our players. Run it like a business.

  10. Exactly right; CA are forcing the states to deliver salaries to 20/20 players thereby splitting their teams into 20/20 and non 20/20 with some who play both and get much larger salaries as a result. This is fractitious and encourages players to make sure they can mis-hit sixes or bowl slower-ball bouncers continually.
    The players' assoc have been involved but that is separate from a body representing the states' welfare as a whole. With coaches of states coming out individually in opposition of the move it seems that they don't agree but it's centred around a recommendation for the test team. I agree, Nos, the states should be far more forceful in how they receive money down the line as it's their responsibility to produce and nurture the players that make up the test squad.
    It's as though CA have only two major objectives; be the best in limited overs cricket and win the Ashes. If we lose to Sri Lanka, South Africa, NZ and India before the Ashes (and that's just the next 4 opposition - the Ashes aren't til 2013) what bloody state of mind will our players be in? Forget the Ashes then, you may as well say to England 'how about we just come over for some ODIs and 20/20s and you can keep the urn?'.
    The thing that shits me is that when CA are forced to make a move like they did with North who the hell are they going to bring in? In my view 20/20 has a far more negative effect on batting style (not that bowling is unaffected mind you) so we'll see guys like Travis Birt who have far from dominated state cricket get a go as the other options are guys like Pomersbach who can belt a ball but can't hang around for 3 hours.
    In a way I think we're in similar times to WSC where the best of the rest are the only options (should the first preference fail of course in this case). If the current crop of players can't get the job done (keeping in mind we say goodbye to Hussey and Ponting soon) then there's precious little left. We'll have either players who simply aren't ready or go to experienced state players who never played test cricket for good reason.

  11. great debate and thoughts guys, but can we then get bullet point headings from all about what they want included please?

    And some ideas on the FB group name too please.
    While i wouldn't try and get to much attention from the masses in the middle of footy season, BB is getting publicity (on FB) with the sign-ups of players at the moment, but cricket will hold little interest to many until after the GF's so how about aiming to have it up and running by the 2nd week in October so we jump the gun for interest before the international season starts. any thoughts on that?

  12. i meant, before the local international season starts. also, it will be a couple of weeks after the SL Test series so we have that a a bit of a yardstick as to the performance and way the team is structured, administered and how it has reacted to the Ashes.

  13. - Preservation of the soul of the game

    FB name "Bash the Big Bash Up Your Ass"

  14. I like it Nos, definately need a punchy name.
    I agree with the notion of it being footy season....maybe we can hit FB now and then have a re-release in Oct?

  15. "Bash the Big Bash Up Your Arse CA(sh)"

  16. "....maybe we can hit FB now and then have a re-release in Oct?"
    agreed, but the name must be finalised because the rest can build up as it goes.

    how much of a hypocrit will i be doing this then taking the sproglets to games!

  17. Hypocrisy thy name is Christopher.

    As a guardian you are forgiven.

    It's up to your kids to make their own decision.