SA Footy

The fast bowler Shaun Tait will miss Australia's limited-overs matches in India this month and at home against Sri Lanka in November after having surgery on his right elbow. Tait is expected to be out of action until at least early December, which also leaves his World Cup hopes in doubt as the squad will be announced later that month.

Injuries, injuries.

Give up already Tait. How many op's on his elbow?

NFC wrote:Injuries, injuries.

Give up already Tait. How many op's on his elbow?

And your point is ?

Ummm that he's injury prone?

Watto should join him

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Watto should join him

LOL, beat me to it.
NFC complaining about an injury prone player........BWHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
His avatar needs cropping daily to avoid pixel pains.

Anyone know when hes due back?

Hoping he will feature in the 20/20 bigbash.

Definitely a worthy successor to Brett Lee...

Just on Shaun tait.

Is it right for him to be a contracted player yet refuse to be considered for selection in test cricket ?
I know CA would rather have him for 50 over and 20/20 rather than not at all, but surely a contracted player should have to be available for all forms of cricket.

smithy wrote:Just on Shaun tait.

Is it right for him to be a contracted player yet refuse to be considered for selection in test cricket ?
I know CA would rather have him for 50 over and 20/20 rather than not at all, but surely a contracted player should have to be available for all forms of cricket.

His contract and his pay would be adjusted for the fact he doesn't play all 3 forms I assume. He plays less cricket so he gets less pay. If CA want him for limited overs games then they have to contract him but they don't have to offer him the same money as the test players.

Otherwise, Ponting wouldn't have a contract because he's unavailable for 20-20 as I recall. Maybe there's some baseline payment they all get and then set payments for day played for Australia so the test guys would earn more than the limited overs' specialists.

Hondo wrote:

smithy wrote:Just on Shaun tait.

Is it right for him to be a contracted player yet refuse to be considered for selection in test cricket ?
I know CA would rather have him for 50 over and 20/20 rather than not at all, but surely a contracted player should have to be available for all forms of cricket.

His contract and his pay would be adjusted for the fact he doesn't play all 3 forms I assume. He plays less cricket so he gets less pay. If CA want him for limited overs games then they have to contract him but they don't have to offer him the same money as the test players.

Otherwise, Ponting wouldn't have a contract because he's unavailable for 20-20 as I recall. Maybe there's some baseline payment they all get and then set payments for day played for Australia so the test guys would earn more than the limited overs' specialists.

Not sure of the payment system Hondo but you make a good point I never thought of regarding Ponting.
With minimal 20/20 internationals but plenty of test cricket I would question the need to bother contracting tait given he doesn't get a 50 over ODI as much these days.

There's a base CA contract (excluding match payments) which is some where between $150K-$200K a year, might even be a bit more than that now.

The only thing is that T20 is easily the most marketable form...

If you're pigeonholed as a gun in limited overs, there's more chance to get extra coin through sponsorship/IPL etc...

Having said that, Ponting wouldn't be struggling...

A journalist in the Sunday Mail today said the base CA contract was $210K a year and obviously you get paid extra if you get picked for squads/games.