Bit of a confusing signing. Huge amount to admire about him as a bowler but he hasn't played div 1 cricket since 2016? 36 years old, 2 year contract possibility of a 3rd.

I thought it certain he was coming as a player/coach. I could have understood that.

It's odd he didn't want to finish his career at Durham, I wonder what's gone on. Was he out of contract? It reads like he requested his release.

If he's coming as a player/bowling coach then fair enough. He has been doing his badges and I think there's a lot to admire about his career and the way he made it in the professional game.

If it's as a player only though I think it's a really odd move. We'll see.

Injured I think, hamstring?

Paul Edwards is the best there is.

Thanks for this.

LeicesterExile wrote:

What is the benefit to the player in receiving his cap other than prestige?

Pay rise, company car, a benefit year eventually, etc

I'm not sure Kai Smith and George Maddy are on full contracts?

Yeah that's a terrific read

Think George Garrett is the only out of contract player now who hasn't had some sort of announcement either way. Might get a deal as he's young and with the injuries we get to seamers...

Had a few decent moments but it was all too fleeting. A good lad by all accounts who seemed to really relish the opportunity to be a pro. I wish him well.

Ah right OK, well I'd have thought Dan Mousley would be in with a shout of starting, Woakes if he's fit and available, maybe Henry Brookes.

Hain has had a relationship with the club since he was 14, likewise Bethell, I think they probably just about count as academy products, they were coached and developed at Edgbaston, but yeah it's not really the same as them being locally raised from birth or early childhood and playing club cricket in the region from under 11's etc

What you mean? Academy developed players in the first XI?

Good enough for Mickey Arther but not good enough for Mark Robinson...

Probably has his best years ahead of him too.

If you'd have come upto me after his ton v Surrey, his 70 odd v Essex (we were in strife both times when he came to the crease, 40 for 4 etc) and the marathon knock v Northants and told me.he wouldn't be getting retained I'd have thought you were back.

Releasing decent homegrown talent, its the Warwickshire way.

BristolBear wrote:

Having spoken to a few players on the circuit at the time, having seen what has been written by respected cricket journalists and the usual rumour mill from players and coaches involved at the club; I think like most moves, there wasn’t just one single reason why Barker moved on.
I’ve always understood that he wanted to stay, however, he wasn’t happy with both the offer and how it was handled. So once he made his decision that he was willing to leave, that it was a case of he’d only leave if he could go down south. When it became apparent that not only was he able to move south but the offer was better and Hampshire clearly wanted him, it was an easy decision.

The problem is, players move for a number of reasons, but in a career that is hardly secure, being wanted and being treated well is a massive thing. And we just don’t seem to be able to convince players to stay, based on how much we want them. That’s made worse often but how much the club chased shiny new targets, and players can see the difference in treatment.

People talk a lot about loyalty in professional sport expecting it of players, but more and more clubs don’t return it either. And I’m concerned we’re becoming a club of mercenaries, rather than a club of players passionate about the badge, not just the name on the back.

Warwickshire is a very weirdly run club, we seem to have a large turnover in players, broadly speaking, in comparison to other counties. We don't seem to value local talent as much as talent recruited from 'outside' either. As has been mentioned we'll release players who are decent or approaching their prime or in their prime and keep fringe players well longer than there production warrants. We've always seemed to make a hash of contract negotiations with our current squad members but are certainly near the top of the queue when it comes to recruiting from other counties.

I too share the concerns about us being a club of mercenaries where players will just pass through for 3, 4 or 5 seasons then ply their trade elsewhere.

Matt Lamb was one of our highest serving players and he's only 26 and made his debut in 2016, sort of illustrates the point.

paulbear wrote:

The idea of losing Lamb is totally insane if it wasn't for the FACT that we had someone like Davies who has been there just 1 season and has played badly. It isn't just that Davies has had no form, it's the way he has been dismissed. If he got a few absolute 'Snorters' or unplayable deliveries I could have some sympathy but he has played some of the most atrocious shots I have ever seen on a cricket field. Not just that, but he has played some of those shots AGAIN, the very next game and not surprisingly, WITH EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT. It must be heartbreaking for a local boy like Lamb to have to move on. I almost hope he plays for another county and makes runs against us so that the management here can hang their heads in shame.

It's the Warwickshire way sadly. We're not a county that values its homegrown players as much as it should. Not as much as other counties do anyway. Recruits from elsewhere will always get better backing seemingly.

Thanks!

Tayls79 wrote:

To me, the issue here is less one of naming and phrasing, and one of financing.

I was reading a blog post of someone on this forum who is an accountant - perhaps Reabank?? - who went into forensic detail about how the pavilion end was paid for (or indeed how it wasn't) and how it led to the conclusion that Warwickshire wasn't a very well run club compared to, presumably, Lancashire, Hampshire and Surrey.

Personally, I think they can describe it how they want if it leads to the club being in a healthier financial state through a profitable project. Too many elite sporting organisations in the West Midlands aren't.

Interesting, where could one find this blog post?

Lamb is off. I was chatting to him in the members bar yesterday after the game. He seemed genuinely distraught, it was quite sobering actually.

I actually think Rhodes has looked in decent nick all year just found ways of getting out. Yates, a horror season really. Sibley strong, what a player. Hain, Atlas like. I've said my piece on Davies many a time.

The release of Matt Lamb just looks totally bewildering.

It's harder to judge bowlers going off stats alone.

OHD was Herculean, obviously. A real talisman.