Tom Curran takes “Indefinite Break” from Red Ball Cricket

Given his injury history this is fair enough although obviously a blow to us as members/fans/supporters.

He does explicitly say he’s not retiring though.

Let's not pretend this is about anything other than maximising income opportunities.

But of an odd thing to say considering he has hardly played red ball since 2017. Not sure he's good enough these days for white ball, this lad has rather wasted a promising career in my view.

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/12800563/tom-curran-taking-break-from-red-ball-cricket-to-focus-on-physical-and-mental-health

the link from Sky Sports website

Sourely he's announcing it now because his lack of England involvement might mean he would be expected to play championship cricket?

VicNorth wrote:Let's not pretend this is about anything other than maximising income opportunities.

I get the scepticism, I really do - but your response here says more about you as a person than it casts any aspersions towards TC.

I don't think is a massive loss considering our pace stocks in 4 day cricket that will be available come early April - Roach, Worrall, Abbott, Clark, Lawes, Atkinson

Doesn't realistically get into our first XI like he'd used to

Cee Gee wrote:

VicNorth wrote:Let's not pretend this is about anything other than maximising income opportunities.

I get the scepticism, I really do - but your response here says more about you as a person than it casts any aspersions towards TC.

Fantastic.

If he doesn't want to play red ball cricket for Surrey then time to get rid.
The reason for most of his injuries chasing the white ball and Money around the world

Nasser Hussain made a great point today, though.

You want to play hardball? Fine. But then you’ll never see him again. And that also is the same for international teams refusing to let players in the IPL. Pietersen. West Indies. De Villiers. Du Plessis. You have to placate the players otherwise they will walk out and follow the money.

Hussain has a vested interest. He works for Sky.

On the White Rose Forum some say that rich Surrey will just go out and recruit somebody else. Which they might but for supporters who pride themselves on their knowledge of cricket they seem remarkably unaware that he has barely played red ball for ages so no replacement at all is required.

I wish people would stop calling cricket 'red-ball cricket'.

VicNorth wrote:Hussain has a vested interest. He works for Sky.

What vested interest would that be? I’m sure Sky aren’t too happy at having the England B team rocking up for most of their matches these days with most of them off on T20 paydays.

Perhaps his vested interest is having the best long-term interests of the game at heart.

Have it your way and England will never be competitive in any format ever again. Players like Stokes, Buttler, and co will retire from internationals and play T20 franchises and nothing else.

Sky wants as many big T20 tournaments as possible, while also having a strong Test team. Keep up!

Buttler isn't good enough to play Test cricket for England. Nor is Tom Curran. Money can"t buy you everything.

Can't believe you're falling for such absolute nonsense.

Surely the whole point here is that TC has only played two tests for England and a couple of CC matches in 4 years. As I've already said his career has gone down the toilet, and if he wants to be remembered (which he won't be) for endless meaningless  Sky sponsored T20 crap, good luck to him. Bloody shame.

RB wrote:

VicNorth wrote:Hussain has a vested interest. He works for Sky.

What vested interest would that be? I’m sure Sky aren’t too happy at having the England B team rocking up for most of their matches these days with most of them off on T20 paydays.

Perhaps his vested interest is having the best long-term interests of the game at heart.

Have it your way and England will never be competitive in any format ever again. Players like Stokes, Buttler, and co will retire from internationals and play T20 franchises and nothing else.

It’s not a hypothetical.

It happened to the West Indies when they refused to let their players go to the IPL. They all walked out.

It happened to De Villiers and Du Plessis.

It nearly happened to Pietersen.

Nasser was not wrong. The power of players these days is immense.

Some observations on limited overs Cricket on TV.
Wickets fall into two categories - HUGE or MASSIVE.
If a batsman is caught "HE CAN'T BELIEVE IT."

adelaide wrote:On the White Rose Forum some say that rich Surrey will just go out and recruit somebody else. Which they might but for supporters who pride themselves on their knowledge of cricket they seem remarkably unaware that he has barely played red ball for ages so no replacement at all is required.

Is that the Div 2 team - they're not though are they ? In my experience from various away trips I woud say that they are just about the most deluded bunch on the circuit.

As for the first point - moneybags Surrey, have they heard of salary cap ? Wouldn't be surprised if they think that's something that can be worn

Badges wrote:Some observations on limited overs Cricket on TV.
Wickets fall into two categories - HUGE or MASSIVE.
If a batsman is caught  "HE CAN'T BELIEVE IT."

It's played with a white-ball.

And big bats.

Badges wrote:Some observations on limited overs Cricket on TV.
Wickets fall into two categories - HUGE or MASSIVE.

It's almost like they have to emphasise how huge/massive, the more matches they play.

cowcorner wrote:As for the first point - moneybags Surrey, have they heard of salary cap ? Wouldn't be surprised if they think that's something that can be worn

Indeed. Though that does raise the question of whether Surrey would continue to pay him the same whether he has chosen to play red ball or not. It's different if a player is actually injured rather than making a deliberate choice, albeit one said to be intended to ward off injury. If he is paid less as a result that creates some headroom in the cap.

I wonder how many counties actually spend up to the cap limit? Durham must have done when Collingwood getting discarded by England caught them out but I imagine quite a few counties simply cannot afford to spend the lot.

This is just laughable...how can he retire from something that he's barely been involved in for 5 years.

He's farked up his career (and it seems his mental health) in pursuit of making money on the international T20 circuit.

A huge waste of a talent-but sadly I see more following in his (and Roy's) footsteps

adelaide wrote:

cowcorner wrote:As for the first point - moneybags Surrey, have they heard of salary cap ? Wouldn't be surprised if they think that's something that can be worn

Indeed. Though that does raise the question of whether Surrey would continue to pay him the same whether he has chosen to play red ball or not. It's different if a player is actually injured rather than making a deliberate choice, albeit one said to be intended to ward off injury. If he is paid less as a result that creates some headroom in the cap.

I wonder how many counties actually spend up to the cap limit? Durham must have done when Collingwood getting discarded by England caught them out but I imagine quite a few counties simply cannot afford to spend the lot.

I think you'll find Collingwood retired, rather than "discarded" by England.

I suspect the answer would be no, because TC's explicitly NOT retiring, and therefore still is contracted to play red-ball cricket. I hope he will play red ball in the latter half of the season.