Are Kolpak players hurting English cricket?

[Prince EWS]

I think the unpalatable truth is that we do have too many first-class entities for the English/British player base to sustain. More people play cricket in Australia in real as well as pro-rata terms, but they do very well on only 6 FC states.

It's also the teams most in danger of the chop (in my estimation, obviously) who are most reliant on Kolpaks. I'm thinking here of Northants, Derbyshire & Leicestershire, primarily. As a fan myself I sympathise with supporters of any team that might cease to exist (in its current form, at any rate), but if these counties aren't self-sufficient financially and are propped up with southern African playing talent they become a net drain on resources.

It's a very positive step anyway IMO. If the ECB discover that the removal of Kolpak players has weakened the competition to a large extent, they can always increase the number of overseas players allowed per team.

It's all about finding a balance between providing a high standard of cricket and providing sufficient opportunities for English cricketers - at the moment, the ECB are without power in finding this balance. If the Kolpak rules are axed then the balance will probably have to be tinkered, but it gives the ECB the power to get it where they want it.

 

[Richard]

Think the biggest thing to note is this gives the ECB more power to stop the game in South Africa being eroded.

 

[Neil Pickup]

My thoughts precisely. Staffs have been far too big for far too long, there's no way 18 counties need two-thirds of the players currently on full-time contracts (would be interested to see exactly what that is, incidentally). The money would be far better spent in other ways.

If there were better ways for it to be spent, it would be spent like that.

 

[Richard]

Really? You've never seen people misprioritise?

County chairmen are far more concerned about how many trophies they win and how successful they are (or appear to be - the Second Division titles are joke-worthy) than they are about trying to make club cricket in their county the best it can possibly be.

Yet for the greater good of the game in this country (and in the long-term, the very existence of most counties depends on this), the latter is infinitely the more important.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Really? You've never seen people misprioritise?

County chairmen are far more concerned about how many trophies they win and how successful they are (or appear to be - the Second Division titles are joke-worthy) than they are about trying to make club cricket in their county the best it can possibly be.

Yet for the greater good of the game in this country (and in the long-term, the very existence of most counties depends on this), the latter is infinitely the more important.

I find it impossible to believe that all eighteen counties are pissing money away.

 

[Richard]

You don't think the chairmen, boards, committees, members and the like aren't mostly far more concerned with their own short-term success than the longer-term good of the game?

If not, I think you've got your head in the sand.

 

[Neil Pickup]

You don't think the chairmen, boards, committees, members and the like aren't mostly far more concerned with their own short-term success than the longer-term good of the game?

If not, I think you've got your head in the sand.

You don't create success by pissing money away.

 

[Richard]

You can quite easily have a scenario where you create short-term success by spending money in ways that does not benefit the prospects long-term.

 

[Neil Pickup]

You can quite easily have a scenario where you create short-term success by spending money in ways that does not benefit the prospects long-term.

Yes... and I don't believe that all 18 counties are chasing that.

 

[Richard]

In which case - as I say, I think you're burying your head in the sand. What premise have to not think that other than "people involved in county cricket aren't self-absorbed short-termists"? Pretty much everything I've read from those involved in the system points to the fact that near enough all those in power in the shires are of such a mindset.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Why must "self-absorbed short-termism" include the desire to lose money? I would have thought it more likely the opposite.

 

[Richard]

You lose money come what may, that's what happens when you spend it. It's just a case of whether it's spent on importing hundreds of expensive players or giving it to the league clubs to try and help development of your own local competitions.

 

[wpdavid]

Never thought that at all. Always thought one per county was fine - and this was in the days before anyone had discovered that they could play in the country because of a British great-grandparent, never mind an EU-qualified grandparent, never never mind a trade agreement between the EU and their country.

One overseas player suits me fine.

One per county wouldn't upset me, but I think that 2 are needed to raise standards whilst still providing opportunities for young English players, so long as thats it. I'd also like to see a limit on the number a county can play in any form of the game over the length of the season: I really can't stand this business of players appearing for a few weeks then disappearing again.

 

[Richard]

2 overseas players is highly unlikely to raise standards enough to justify the expenditure that is shelled-out on them, though. Don't you remember the 2003 and 2004 seasons? When 4 or 5 overseas players represented more counties than not, that in addition to all the EU-passport players. Matthew Engel (or someone - I think it was him) described it as "the mad free-for-all", and that was quite apt.

1 overseas player per county per game, maximum of 2 different ones per season, is fine with me. Though there'll still be plenty who can play in the county game on EU-passports.

 

[morgieb]

Just curious why Glamorgan have no Kolpaks. Do you wonder why they're last

 

[Richard]

Look at the British players in their squad as well. They could just as easily import from other counties, but have elected instead to spend money on the ground and aim to stage Test cricket.

By putting the greater long-term good of English (and, the hope is, Welsh) cricket ahead of their own short-term success, they are doing something infinitely more commendable than the Northamptonshires, Somersets and Leicestershires with 5 SAfricans and the odd WIndian and Aussie on their books.

 

[morgieb]

Look at the British players in their squad as well. They could just as easily import from other counties, but have elected instead to spend money on the ground and aim to stage Test cricket.

By putting the greater long-term good of English (and, the hope is, Welsh) cricket ahead of their own short-term success, they are doing something infinitely more commendable than the Northamptonshires, Somersets and Leicestershires with 5 SAfricans and the odd WIndian and Aussie on their books.

I agree. Just think it might be wiser to by good players for once.

 

[brockley]

With the ECB slow to amend the rules expect their to be a rush to sign kolpaks especially since south africa play no cricket next summer.

 

[Richard]

I imagine (certainly hope) the ECB are considering the options.

It's not impossible they may be able to rule that existing contracts cannot be fulfilled as they were signed under the impression that regulations existed which in reality did not. IE, they can say that these players were once recognised as EU-labour-entitled; now they are not, so those contracts cannot be fulfilled.

The lawyers among us would probably be able to offer more interesting light on this matter.

 

[sledger]

As they were EU-Labour-entitled at the time of signing it's likely anything signed to date will stand I expect, obviously it will impact differently on any deals that would be made in the future, but as any deals made previously were entirely above board at the time of signing or whatever...I imagine they will be valid.