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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests