Pampered English poodles need more cricket, not less...

England Cricket / Paul Moon / 24 December 2007 / 1 Comments

Don't mention burnout to Paul Moon...

I get absolutely livid and suffer something akin to road rage when the phrase burnout is used in English Cricket. I actually believe some players need more cricket.

England and Wales Cricket Board chairman Giles Clarke predicted that the national team would have to adopt a football-style rotation system to avoid player burnout, given the relentlessness of the international game. We have had feedback from players that there are times when they need a rest he said sympathetically.

Steve Harmison was one who offered feedback and said "we are not robots". He went on to say he feared players might have to quit the game prematurely because of burnout. This whinging pamperette has bowled less than 37 overs per month since he made his England debut in August 2002. That is approximately nine overs per week with very little county cricket to be added to that (see www.cricinfo.com for verification). I genuinely feel he is insulting the paying public's intelligence!

On the 2004/05 South African tour he endured a pitiable Test series taking just nine wickets at the extremely high average of 73.22. He confessed to the press that he had been hoping to fail his fitness test on a niggling calf injury in order to be allowed home early. His pathetic and lifeless opening spell seemed to set the tone for what proved to be a disastrous Ashes tour in Australia. That told me a lot about the wimpette.

Our England Cricket Team, the most indulged poodles in the history of the game, was awarded 12-month central contracts and can expect to earn about £250,000 per year and do not have to walk the treadmill of the county game. So what exactly do they want to do for the money and fortune? Contracting the top players centrally has been a step in the right direction and actually lessened the amount of cricket they have to play.

Ask any of the Australian test team if they would like to be "rested" or "rotated" for one of their upcoming games against India. I doubt you'd be able to publish their response on this website! No one has asked the paying public if they want this. A day at a Test Match is now quite expensive especially if you take the family etc. They want and deserve to see the best players.

You cannot blame tiredness for the wretched fiasco in Sri Lanka. There has never been a positive mindset. No mention of our batsmen toughing it out or our bowlers showing variations and consistency. Swann should have played in all tests, he is an attacking off-spinner who actually turns the ball and would have taken wickets for sure. It was an absolute disgrace that he did not play in the final test at Galle. Can one of our readers tell me why he did not play, what am I missing here?

I do accept the administrators and television paymaster's cobble together the fixture list and it is often to the detriment of cricket. Why is it necessary to start a test two or three days after the end of the previous one? It is madness and should not be allowed but the players have demanded shorter tours, so they are culpable too!

Regarding the improvement of our English Cricket Team I do accept the gap between Test and county cricket is still too large. Until there is another level in between England will only get so far but allowing or asking cricketers not to play is not the answer!

Burnout is an excuse phrase, I do not subscribe to it...

Comments (1)

1. Andy H | 26 December 2007

   Good article

   England simply don't have the resources to employ a football style rotation system (and there is evidence to suggest it doesn't work in that particular sport either). There is more cricket played now than in previous eras but then again, travelling is easier and quicker, there are virtually no warm-up games on tour these days, accomodation, for England players at least, is first class and the rewards are substantial.