Freelance cricketers, good or bad news for cricket? At Paddlesweep.net, they are pleading it could be a good thing for cricket. I’m not so sure.
In a follow-up post on Dwayne Bravo and Kieron Pollard turning down WICB contracts, this is what Ms. Print writes:
Is it good for cricket? Yes, because players like Pollard have a solid fan base and him being a nomad will create an interest in all the leagues he plays in. More interest, more revenue…that’s good for the ‘small’ leagues, right?
No, I’m sorry Ms. Print, but you’re wrong.
Freelancers are in it for the money, big money. Not something the “small leagues” will be able to offer. That is why Bravo and Pollard are playing domestic Twenty20 in the wealthiest nations England, Australia and India.
Only the top nations can afford to get the best players and by doing so are effectively draining quality from others, who don’t have money in abundance.
In the case of West Indies, clearly not one of the big guns, it means Bravo and Pollard will pick the games they want to play for them.
This won’t do cricket in the Caribbean any good, because people will lose interest in international cricket if the best aren’t playing. Which leads to less revenue, leading to more players opting to go freelance, and so on ..
Bravo and Pollard know West Indies need them and thus they do as they please. I am not blaming these two, but I think to much freelancing could really harm cricket.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.