Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Have you not, inadvertently, strengthened Dobell's claims
in your post above by illustrating that on the occasions when Yorkshire have failed to benefit by decisions Graves would not be in a position to exert influence?
Decisions on the availability to Counties of centrally contracted players will be made solely by Bayliss and rubber stamped by Strauss. Are you seriously suggesting that Strauss would entertain interference from Graves on the issue?
Likewise there has been a rule in place long before Graves was in post regarding the prohibition of games prior to the staging of test matches. Yorkshirechose to apply for a test match full aware of that ruling and the risk that it involved. What possible reason,therefore, could Graves have to interfere in that ruling.
Dobell has an agenda, undoubtedly. He's asking for clarity on decision making and independence by those who make them. Graves has a large financial stake in Yorkshire and Dobell questions how can he be independent on decisions which involve Yorkshire's finances. Great play is made by ECB that Graves withdrew from the voting when ground allocations were made. That implies, though, that he had influence by having input on the prior discussions.The question has been repeatedly asked as to whether Graves was involved when the decision to withdraw the test match status of Durham, a nearby competitor of Yorkshire, was made. No answer has ever been given from which people will draw their own conclusion.

The ground rules are ICC, not ECB mandated, so Graves had no influence in that issue. The finals day was after the test, and teams played a full championship set of games that week, so the rescheduling it around the huge period of unavailability of ground was not possible either.

Strauss made the decision on Bairstow. Legally, there will be a document that sets out the scope of each persons role in a company, and I am sure it will rule that playing selections are not in the scope of the Chairman or the board.

Seems to be one of those north v south games in Bridgetown today. Trailer for the new season.

what is the point of them, I wonder? Apart from giving a bit of match practice and a bit of winter sun to a few players, there doesn't seem to be much. Besides, a fair few of those players have been getting all those things with the lions

It's a replacement for the traditional champions v Rest preseason opener. Many years ago North v South fixture was an important pre-tests trial game. The white ball fixture today would have been very interesting if it still took place in England.

Great to listen on 5LiveSport. Lots of county gossip and great commentary.
Mahmood got 5 bowleds, how often does that happen?
I think the South will be too strong.

Middlesex have Ashton Agar for whole of the t20 blast

good signing, I reckon

westoelad wrote:Have you not, inadvertently, strengthened Dobell's claims
in your post above by illustrating that on the occasions when Yorkshire have failed to benefit by decisions Graves would not be in a position to exert influence?
Decisions on the availability to Counties of centrally contracted players will be made solely by Bayliss and rubber stamped by Strauss. Are you seriously suggesting that Strauss would entertain interference from Graves on the issue?

At the time Bairstow was not centrally contracted to the ECB during the MIddlesex CC finale. The ECB had no right to request a non contracted player to rest, particularly when the Director of Cricket has an interest with Middlesex and this was widely seen as interfering with a competition, particularly when central contracted Steven Finn was allowed to play. The Yorkshire management would have been within their rights to say no and play Bairstow anyway.

sussexpob wrote:The ground rules are ICC, not ECB mandated, so Graves had no influence in that issue. The finals day was after the test, and teams played a full championship set of games that week, so the rescheduling it around the huge period of unavailability of ground was not possible either.

The international fixtures were released some 2-3 months before the domestic schedule, this should have been flagged up before the T20 Blast started and not halfway through the tournament when Yorkshire were firmly in the top 2.

It was theoretically possible for Yorkshire to play a Home Quarter Final at Headingley (on Sunday 20th August), there was no other domestic cricket in action and Headingley was available.

At the end of a series of home England matches ECB issue a list of the availability of all players involved,centrally contracted or not which suggests being centrally contracted is irrelevant. As regards that championship decider game hadn't Bairstow taken himself off on holiday, America wasn't it?, which suggests where his priorities were.

The north have racked up 335-8 in the 2nd game

Alviro Patterson wrote: It was theoretically possible for Yorkshire to play a Home Quarter Final at Headingley (on Sunday 20th August), there was no other domestic cricket in action and Headingley was available.

It is theoretically possible for any number of things to have occurred had Yorkshire qualified, such as moving the game to Scarborough, moving the game before the ICC were handed the keys, or playing the game on mars.

The fact is, Yorkshire didnt qualify. So no issue occurred.

Alviro Patterson wrote:At the time Bairstow was not centrally contracted to the ECB during the MIddlesex CC finale. The ECB had no right to request a non contracted player to rest, particularly when the Director of Cricket has an interest with Middlesex and this was widely seen as interfering with a competition, particularly when central contracted Steven Finn was allowed to play. The Yorkshire management would have been within their rights to say no and play Bairstow anyway

No, not true.

He was awarded an incremental contract for the year (and a full contract about the time of the match in question, depending on when the actual announcement was made, which is usually either after the last internationals or last county game).....

That gives the ECB a contractual right to control when he plays. So no, Yorkshire would have been in breach of contract if they had played him.

Bairstow was coming off a good period of form and was clearly going to play in the winter. I think Finn only played one more test in his career since, as was seen as a player who needed to prove he could make a squad.

Not comparable.

westoelad wrote:At the end of a series of home England matches ECB issue a list of the availability of all players involved,centrally contracted or not which suggests being centrally contracted is irrelevant. As regards that championship decider game hadn't Bairstow taken himself off on holiday, America wasn't it?, which suggests where his priorities were.

In order of balance, no I dont think its at all any doubt that Bairstow wanted to play in the game. I am pretty sure he was very vocal about being forced by Strauss to take the game off and rest, he clearly wanted to play the game.

By product of the original issue though which is should Graves be involved in decisions in which he has a clear and substantial financial interest.