Performance, Players and Pay

[head coach]

This situation explains the dynamics behind your very well defined "selfish vs selfless" players...I am just saying we need more of the latter' date=' and as many of the former who revert back to the basics, ie this is a game that WE are paying for as fans, and so, play it like WE want it to be played, and so win for the team. Then we will pay you, but first play and win.[/quote'] Hari, I like your idea but it's a hard sell in current situation. Cricketers are looking for job security as in any other job. Every time a player dive to field a ball or take a catch, there is fear in his mind that if he gets injured he will be out of the team and then he will lose out on his earnings. Contract systems changes this mindset. This is successful in Australia and England. In India players make huge amount of money through endorsements. To put a cap on these would be ideal but we know what happened after world cup!

[Guest HariSampath]

The point is simply as follows as far as I am concerned: If the whole of United States just love watching Michael Jordan slamdunking, and he personally has a great following, while the Chicago bulls don't, there will be a situation when there will be enormous pressure on Jordan to keep slamdunking or make only his plays irrespective of the team Bulls winning or not. But if the Bulls have a greater following and everyone wants to see the Bulls winning, whether or not Jordan plays, or performs, the collective forces will now shift to the team winning ( because the team is the Star now) So automatically Jordan will have to deliver the job requirement and cannot afford to focus on himself or his play at the team's expense, because his survival itself depends on the Bulls winning, and if they don't he's gotta look for a job, and it pays well for him when the team wins. Note : Michael was just an example, I love Michael AND the Bulls, and never did forgive him for defecting to the Wizards :-)

[Lurker]

Thats what I am getting at. You see.at the bottom of the pyramid, are the millions of fans who form the market of Insurance companies, credit cards, motorcycles, soft drinks and everything, and thats why the players are so highly paid, becos if they are watched by us, getting famous by performing for us, and because we buy all the products that the sponsors use to pay them, then WE, the fans, are paying them. Thats what I mean by saying " he who pays the piper calls the tune" We, are paying them , the piper....so, lets call the tune , that is maximum number of wins as possible for India, and when that happens, we identify who made it happen and happily pay them according to what they did for winning.

Lets explore that a bit further Hari. Yes as people who ultimately churn out the mullah WE ought to be the biggest stakeholders in Cricket Company that is Team India. However the fact remains that the Directors(read players) make money regardless of how they perform. Simply because they and the Board(BCCI) do not have a series of checks and balances where stock holders like you and me can ask questions. So if history of Indian cricket has taught anything that is that players would give two hoots to how fans think. I don't neccessarily disagree with your sentiments mind you, just do not see it happenin from a practical point of view. xxx

[Guest HariSampath]

Hari' date=' I like your idea but it's a hard sell in current situation. Cricketers are looking for job security as in any other job. Every time a player dive to field a ball or take a catch, there is fear in his mind that if he gets injured he will be out of the team and then he will lose out on his earnings. Contract systems changes this mindset. This is successful in Australia and England. In India players make huge amount of money through endorsements. To put a cap on these would be ideal but we know what happened after world cup![/quote'] Agreed, players need security. Physical sporting careers can be very short indeed and yes, the players have spent toil and time getting to the top against all odds, and I have nothing against security. My point is this : Why grade players based on what is in their resume ? Instead once they become India player, all are same TILL they perform to win. So, have a basic minimum amount, SAME for all, then divide the major amount according to game/series or tournament wins, BASED on what the player has done importantly, to win the game, irrespective of how his resume looked ( 100 ODIs or 2 ODIs) before he was selected

[Gambit]

One shouldn't be naive enough to think that seniors will continue to play even if they stop getting paid. At the same time, one shouldn't be naive enough to think that the only reason the seniors play is because of money. There is a middle ground. SRT, Dravid and SCG have been in the Indian team for a long time now. It's no longer just about the money to them IMO. Money is important of course, but they genuinely care about the team, it's current state and it's future. They want to make sure that the transition from the yesterday to the tomorrow happens smoothly. As an analogy, it's like a techie, working for a big company, building a system from scratch. He is obviously working to pay the bills but the system he's working on starts to grow on him slowly. A system that he puts his heart, soul and mind to and such a point has been reached that he has to move on to a different role but is so extremely passionate about the system he's built that he wouldn't want anything to go wrong with it and wants to train and guide the person taking over from him as much as possible and would want that person to care as much as he does about the system. That is what I think SRT, SCG and RD genuinely want. They want to leave a winning team behind, which is why they stuck on after the WC. Not just because of the money.

[yoda]

Hari, Didn't MJ have a bigger contract than Pippen?

[head coach]

Agreed, players need security. Physical sporting careers can be very short indeed and yes, the players have spent toil and time getting to the top against all odds, and I have nothing against security. My point is this : Why grade players based on what is in their resume ? Instead once they become India player, all are same TILL they perform to win. So, have a basic minimum amount, SAME for all, then divide the major amount according to game/series or tournament wins, BASED on what the player has done importantly, to win the game, irrespective of how his resume looked ( 100 ODIs or 2 ODIs) before he was selected

Hari, Well the idea is simple. If you are paid more then your responsibility also is more. Apart from the deliverables on the field in terms of runs and wickets they are supposed to contribute towards team management, knowledge sharing and provide peer support training as well. How much of this actually comes into practice is debatable though.

[Guest HariSampath]

Lets explore that a bit further Hari. Yes as people who ultimately churn out the mullah WE ought to be the biggest stakeholders in Cricket Company that is Team India. However the fact remains that the Directors(read players) make money regardless of how they perform. Simply because they and the Board(BCCI) do not have a series of checks and balances where stock holders like you and me can ask questions. So if history of Indian cricket has taught anything that is that players would give two hoots to how fans think. I don't neccessarily disagree with your sentiments mind you, just do not see it happenin from a practical point of view. xxx

I know almost everyone will agree heart of hearts on the essence of what I am saying, in priciple. About whether it is possible practically ? Why not ? See, its a question of how we make the players( directors) , executives or whatever, including all administrators etc ACCOUNTABLE for the company performance and profits. If there are losses in the company, I am afraid, we may need to fire the chairman, CEO, and ask tough questions of the executives, and maybe fire them and hire someone else ( new players) who will have to make the Team, company cricket profitable for the shareholderes ( us) , that is win as many times as possible. But if we are all the time being taken in by charismatic executives and their sweet talk, we have to live with the losses. btw, whther you may agree or not, THIS above phenomenon I have explained is exactly what happened after our world cup loss in a crude manner. Fans stoning cricketers homes, breaking property, burning pictures etc....as an expression of the shareholders anger, I mean don't we see the same thing happening when corrupt finance companies dupe innocent people of their savings in India. These incidents , while not acceptable, gives us a great lesson that the system was working in some way, and with proper thought and mass movements of right thinking passionate and capable fans, can be systematised in some way to work efficiently. Another expression was the Wankhede crowd giving went to their feelings and incredibly, BOO Sachin !! While we all jump to criticise it ( I too did) , we must at least quietly think about what exactly is happening and why.

[Gambit]

Chandan will love this thread. :cantstop:

[Guest HariSampath]

Hari' date=' Well the idea is simple. If you are paid more then your responsibility also is more. Apart from the deliverables on the field in terms of runs and wickets they are supposed to contribute towards team management, knowledge sharing and provide peer support training as well. How much of this actually comes into practice is debatable though.[/quote'] Excellent, this is what I was waiting for someone to say. Let me take this further: Higher pay means higher responsibility, right ? So if an A contract player and a B contract player are in the same side , chasing 320 to win, or defending 180 to win in 50 overs, how is the resposibility defined here now ? Can't the Contract C or B player say " well, I was hired for Rs 10 lakhs or Rs 20 lakhs, so I will at best get 30 off 35, or 40 off 45, my job is considered a success, let the fellow hired at 40 lakhe get the run a ball hundred to win. Will this fly ? , In fact if the idea of paying by the past experience and resume is fundamentally correct, then we too cannot dispute if a C contract or B contract player says so. An Agarkar or Powar can well say, " look for C contract all you get from me is 10 overs 1 for 50"... why not ? after all the Sr VP of a company and a trainee software engineer are not paid the same amount due to their experience, BUT their job responsibilities are diff. The software engineer can just write a few hundreds of lines of code and go home ( even if its clugy :giggle: ) but the VP needs to do lots more, and he gets lots more, and thats the contract. Since this aspect of the model cannot apply to sport teams performing ( See the B, C players and the Agarkar/powar argument)... we have to conclude the assumption is wrong. So Graded players contracts are counter productive and should be done awy with. Reductio ad absurdum On the question of players performance there is another point, a very important one on what defines succes or failure, if the standards of definition are diff etc....I will deal with it separately, but you get the idea

[Guest HariSampath]

Hari, Didn't MJ have a bigger contract than Pippen?

I am pretty sure Michael had a bigger deal than Scotty, but will have to check

[Anakin]

>>>> Same things could be applied in too many cases, like making seniors field at short leg or stuff like that, doesn't work like that. If it benefits the team...why not? If they are good fielders in that position then why not? If they are better some place else...they should be fielding there.What ever works best for the team.

Yes, but let's say both are as good as each other, then? I'll read the other posts later and reply, but it'll be of no use when people already are convinced players only play for money.

[Anakin]

One shouldn't be naive enough to think that seniors will continue to play even if they stop getting paid. At the same time, one shouldn't be naive enough to think that the only reason the seniors play is because of money. There is a middle ground. SRT, Dravid and SCG have been in the Indian team for a long time now. It's no longer just about the money to them IMO. Money is important of course, but they genuinely care about the team, it's current state and it's future. They want to make sure that the transition from the yesterday to the tomorrow happens smoothly. As an analogy, it's like a techie, working for a big company, building a system from scratch. He is obviously working to pay the bills but the system he's working on starts to grow on him slowly. A system that he puts his heart, soul and mind to and such a point has been reached that he has to move on to a different role but is so extremely passionate about the system he's built that he wouldn't want anything to go wrong with it and wants to train and guide the person taking over from him as much as possible and would want that person to care as much as he does about the system. That is what I think SRT, SCG and RD genuinely want. They want to leave a winning team behind, which is why they stuck on after the WC. Not just because of the money.

If money was the main objective any idiot in SCG's shoes would stick with family cash cow or SRT and RDs would engage into their own business after making big bucks (which already happened too long ago) in stead of toiling so hard. I'm sure it's the arm chair critics including me who don't really get or appreciate the amount of physical labor these guys are still putting in.

[Gambit]

If money was the main objective any idiot in SCG's shoes would stick with family cash cow or SRT and RDs would engage into their own business after making big bucks (which already happened too long ago) in stead of toiling so hard. I'm sure it's the arm chair critics including me who don't really get or appreciate the amount of physical labor these guys are still putting in.

True. If money was the sole objective, why would SCG have ever taken up cricket? :cantstop:

[Guest HariSampath]

True. If money was the sole objective' date=' why would SCG have ever taken up cricket? :cantstop:[/quote'] Money can never be the sole priority, I am sure recognition and fame as highly skilled cricketers are the drivers early on, and for quite sometime. But as they get into the system, the very need to have to remain in the system ( now for both fame and money, bcos they have become inextricably interwoven) takes over. At these times, a compelling instinct to maintain the star status, both by performing as well as the name/fame factor makes cricketers overlook team goals and focus on their own individual status. Same goes for Tennis, or other individual sport, but here there is no team that is affected. Maria Sharapova may be a pinup girl who is an industry, but she well knows she has gotta win tennis matches now and then, else she would no longer be a star, but then her good or bad play can be solely planned for herself, and no teamsuffers. In soccer, Basketball, cricket etc, if star wants to remain a star at the expense of his team, and so play accordingly, his team will lose.

[yoda]

I am pretty sure Michael had a bigger deal than Scotty' date=' but will have to check[/quote'] Of course he did. Point is that in all pro sport environments, bigger/better players get bigger/better contracts.

[Lurker]

True. If money was the sole objective' date=' why would SCG have ever taken up cricket? :cantstop:[/quote'] There is a difference between SCG of today and SCG of 90s. Simply speaking youngsters dont care much about money, simple. Why worry about cricketers, lets take the case of you(or me Gambo). At my first job money was important, but hardly the driver. The emphasis was to get a job, become independent and take on the world. Today would I take job similar to my first one? Hell no. For the bulk of us the first requisite of a good job is the benefits we receive today, not the satisfaction. Which is another reason why youngsters should replace the buddha brigade :eyedance:

[Holysmoke]

There is a difference between SCG of today and SCG of 90s. Simply speaking youngsters dont care much about money, simple. Why worry about cricketers, lets take the case of you(or me Gambo). At my first job money was important, but hardly the driver. The emphasis was to get a job, become independent and take on the world. Today would I take job similar to my first one? Hell no. For the bulk of us the first requisite of a good job is the benefits we receive today, not the satisfaction. Which is another reason why youngsters should replace the buddha brigade :eyedance:

What BS is that? Youngsters care the most about money. The 21 lacs that Joginder Sharma got, will seem much more to him, compared to if you gave it to SCG. You need to realise, that you cannot equate your jobs with cricket careers. You can change jobs in a snap, they cant.

[Lurker]

What BS is that? Youngsters care the most about money. The 21 lacs that Joginder Sharma got, will seem much more to him, compared to if you gave it to SCG. You need to realise, that you cannot equate your jobs with cricket careers. You can change jobs in a snap, they cant.

And Holy arrives :yay: his second word is BS...What BS man :eyedance: So many loopholes in your post Holy. For one if 21 lakh means more to Sharma than SCG that tells you about a youngster? hahahaha..so if it was a 34 year old(say Salvi..not that he is 34 years old but older) bowling instead of Sharma and received 21 lakhs your argument would have fallen on its head..See the fallacy of your argument? Jobs with cricket careers. That is whole essence of this thread. Please read up and see the part where cricketers have to be responsible to take their stakeholders, you and me. And yes you will have to read the entire thread. If you agree with that line of thought trust me a job shall come with lot less responsibility than cricket. :finger:

[Guest HariSampath]

What BS is that? Youngsters care the most about money. The 21 lacs that Joginder Sharma got, will seem much more to him, compared to if you gave it to SCG. You need to realise, that you cannot equate your jobs with cricket careers. You can change jobs in a snap, they cant.

I am afraid I agree with Lurker , holysmke, lets face it. If you were Joginder Sharma today, and given the choice of the 21 lakhs and a chance to play 3 more ODIs with no pay, what would you take / I am sure Jogi will jump at the chance of playing for the team 3 more times, hopefulyy winning a game, being seen on TV by 1 billion, and being recognized by all. Thats a given. But ten years down the line, maybe if Jogi is a star with 20 contracts and has to stay in public view BOTH for name and the money, we can't be too sure as to allhe his performances will be to win games for the country or just to do something to remain in the side. This is the very core issue I had addressed in the first article on the Lord's Test 2002