England's cricketers will be reflecting on a perfect start to this summer's long campaign. This was the first Test won by England at Lord's for four years and eight matches, so winning itself will be very satisfying. But to win in this fashion, with two days to spare, and having to bowl only 104 overs to take 20 wickets – that makes it more like a valuable and relaxing stroll in the park.
Seeing the two teams in bracing May weather, on a pitch with life in it, someone with no knowledge of the winter's cricket would find it hard to comprehend how West Indies could have won that series, however narrowly, only a month ago. But Barbados and Lord's were chalk and cheese; on flat, lifeless pitches Ramnaresh Sarwan and Shiv Chanderpaul were almost invincible, as opposed to Lord's, where the ball swung throughout, moved occasionally off the pitch, and – the most important thing – did it all at speed. What was surprising and – from an English point of view – promising, was that their fast bowlers were so much more penetrative, making the ball fly through to the wicketkeeper often at head height, than the West Indies, with the sole exception of Fidel Edwards.
What was also striking about the match was that none of the outstanding performers for England – man of the match Graeme Swann, Ravi Bopara and Graham Onions – is centrally contracted. Nor is Matt Prior, who also had a good game. Of the 12 who are centrally contracted, each earning on average, it is estimated, £250,000 per year, five were not selected, and one (Andrew Flintoff) is injured.
Does mean that the ECB's money is wasted? That central contracts are given to the wrong players, to too many players, or to not enough players? Does it even suggest that the whole concept should be given up?
In this paper last week, Jamie Jackson quoted Andrew Chandler, the agent who represents Flintoff, Michael Vaughan, and Steve Harmison, as saying that England players "may be better off without central contracts". Jackson wrote: "In a scenario he has discussed with Flintoff, Chandler suggests that players could become free agents, maximizing their earnings from the IPL and any other lucrative Twenty20 competitions which may be created in the future … He [Chandler] has pointed out to Flintoff that eventually his life would be like a golfer's, with no contract with anybody."
Chandler's arguments ignore three basic facts. One is that cricket is a team game, not an individual game like golf. You cannot have people picking and choosing their games. You build a team. If a player is unwilling to play in particular matches (people often declined to travel to India and Pakistan) he does so on the clear assumption that he will have to fight his way back into the team, not only on performance, but on the basis of what the impact on team morale might be. And that applies even without contracts. The Flintoffs of the future must never be allowed to pick the IPL over Test cricket. If they do, England are the worse for it. The ECB have to have the final say on where and when someone may or may not play in non-international cricket.
Second, it ignores the element of integrity in a cricketing life – would you rather play in something approaching exhibition cricket (like the Harlem Globetrotters, say) or would you prefer to challenge yourself and prove yourself in the highest form of the competitive game?
Third, we need to remember the point of central contracts. If there is no contract between national cricketing authorities and players, the former have no legal right to constrain the trading of the latter. This was the basis on which Kerry Packer and World Series Cricket won their lawsuit against the ICC and TCCB in the High Court in 1977. The ECB, the descendant of the TCCB, is paying 12 players large sums precisely so as to be able to control them. You sign a contract for security, and, in doing so, you give up some freedom. The ECB, like other national cricketing bodies, have to be absolutely clear. If you sign such a contract it is the ECB's decision where and when you play. And their decisions must be tough.
It was right to let Ravi Bopara, Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood go to the IPL for two weeks this year. They came back just about in time to be part of the build-up for the first Test. I think they were wrong to let Flintoff go, with his fitness record. The West Indies Board were wrong to allow their captain to go, and to come back two days before the first match. How could Chris Gayle possibly be ready to lead a team in a Test match in such circumstances? Australia, by contrast, have withdrawn permission from three of their players to go to the last two weeks of the IPL on medical grounds, even though two of them, Nathan Bracken and James Hopes, had batted and bowled in the recent Twenty20 match against Pakistan, before which they were informed of the decision.
The problem is that the IPL skews the system in monetary terms. The IPL – which, according to an analysis announced last week, is worth more than $2bn – is in a position to pay far more than others, including national boards. This means that the central contracts have to be high, as they are, but also that there are bound to be confrontations.
There is the further question of how many players should receive them, and how much the contracts should vary. It seems hard that English cricket should be paying Vaughan and Harmison all this money which could go to grass roots cricket. Perhaps the criteria for offering central contracts, and for the amounts paid, should include how valuable certain players are likely to be to the IPL, as well as how valuable they are to the national team.
The ECB are making the right noises. Hugh Morris, their cricket director, said on Friday that the Board were always reviewing contracts and were willing to change the emphasis: they may well gear them more towards Test cricket so as to offer a greater incentive for players to be available for this form of the game. And Andy Flower, asked after the Lord's Test what would have happened had one of England's players come back two days before the Test, like Gayle, said, simply: "He wouldn't have played."
