Clearly there is a mood 'out there' in international cricket-land where the various Indian cricket twenty-twenty competitions are so lucrative that cricketers are willing to forgo national selection so as to provide financial security for themselves and their families (New Zealand cricketers are an example).
Now it seems that Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds is relieved that he no longer has a binding commitment to Cricket Australia.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/cricket/injury-plagued-tait-gets-his-wish--and-so-does-roy/2009/06/12/1244664847653.html
Soccer, with its players valued at millions of dollars has somehow overcome this dilemma where its superstars play under contractual agreements in clubs across the globe, but these players return to their national teams when required.
Tennis too has overcome this situation as generations of tennis players now find the time and the inclination to contest the Davis Cup for their nation.
Cricket chaplain of 25 years, and chairman of Well-Being Australia, Baptist minister Mark Tronson, has been reflecting on this situation, particularly in the light of the revolution in Cricket that the World Series Cricket created in the late 1970s.
"The West Indies came through the World Series Cricket in a situation where their national officials almost immediately recognised that there was a reasonable case to be answered," M V Tronson said. "They subsequently responded positively."
In the situation with the New Zealand cricketers playing in India, mentioned above, we have now seen that the New Zealand cricket officials have taken a similar path to their West Indian counterparts had taken 'thirty years' previously.
A professional cricketer can earn more than enough money through these Indian cricket leagues to ensure their financial security by playing for two to four months of the year, giving time to enjoy their families and still establish a life for after cricket.
The money is so great that it seems that a cricketer can choose not to play for their national team (for whatever reason), and the outcome may still be 'more' beneficial to that cricketer, specifically in relation to earnings and respite-come-family time at home.
Without doubt the Australian cricket team schedule in 2009 is horrendous, with time at home in one's own bed measured in weeks. Likewise the other major cricketing nations.
International cricket is reflecting upon such issues. Officials realise that in the modern world with all its alternative pathways, there is certainly a sense in which cricketers, at times, would be pleased to exclude themselves from national duties.
This situation is in order to live in a more pleasant and less injury-prone (and more financially secure) way. Who wouldn't want such an option, especially when family commitments come along!
This may be exemplified by retired Australian cricketers Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden, who are exhibiting a remarkable buoyancy of life by only competing in the 'twenty-twenty' games.
We may see an avalanche towards such competitions, with benefits of lucrative entertainment opportunities provided by wider world-wide audiences, along with improved lifestyles for the players.
To be sure, cricket administrators are working on various formulas, but as they too are caught in a 'hard place', and it may be taken out of their hands by cricketers making their own decisions, and this may open doors that have as yet not been considered.