On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:20:04 GMT, "Cicero" 
wrote:

>I can't argue with any of your points (just summarising- Australia has an 
>older squad and England a lot younger)
>
>But, are the dynamics going to change? Players used to get out pretty early 
>so they could get worthwhile money. (A Few exceptions, but really it wasn't 
>a rewarding career).

OTOH the greater amount of cricket means that they are likely to not
be able to perform at the very highest level for as long - after all
England fans know more than the most the risk of serious injury from
ware and tear with Flintoff, Simon Jones, Vaughan, Trescothick and
Giles all having long term and in Giles & Tres' case career finishing
injuries. 

>
>
>Better money came along- players have stayed in the game longer.
>
>Now even better money is on hand with IPL- will players leave younger and 
>allow more opportunities? 

Boards will not force players too choose because they 
*will*  lose out, the example of Bond is case in point, if you force a
player to choose between a by no means guaranteed place in the
national side at poor pay (by professional sporting standards) or 6
weeks work that will set you up for life the money will always win -
the boards will very quickly learn that they have to live with the IPL
not fight against it.
-

Got unwanted CDs, DVDs & Games?
www.swapshop.co.uk/default.aspx?referrerid=b788c9b0-70e7-4192-91cc-d549e513f0bf

--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned! 
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World  - Vila in typical panic mode)