*Official* UK off-season 2009/10

[Richard]

Season almost over, so I guess it's time for this. (If someone's already done one then plz delete, obvs.)

Inter-county movements have already started. As ever there's a heap of hopeless players (mostly bowlers) I hope might retire because they're doing neither themselves nor county cricket any good by playing.

And it'll be really interesting to see what happens with non-British\Irish\EU players this winter. I hope the vast majority will not be coming back next year. Be good if someone could supply some info on how many of the SAffies who've been playing as Kolpaks have now got British passports so won't be able to be ejected when the new rules come into place.

 

[morgieb]

AFAIK McLaren has definitely left. Could be many to leave as well.

 

[morgieb]

So far:

Steven Davies, Gareth Batty (Surrey), Murali Kartik (Somerset), Justin Langer (retiring), Lee Goddard (Derbyshire), James Pipe (retiring), Alan Richardson (Worcestershire), Kabir Ali (Hampshire), Mark Butcher, Andy Caddick, John Crawley, Jason Gallian, Mark Ealham (retiring), Billy Goldeman (Essex), HD Ackerman (released - probably retiring), Ajantha Mendis (Hampshire), Imran Tahir (released), Ryan McLaren (released - losing Kolpak status)

And there's certainly more too.

 

[morgieb]

First division
D benkenstein 35 NO last international 2002
t henderson 35 NO not enough internationals
s ervine 26 last international 2004 qualifying for england.
f duplesses 25 NO no internationals
A adams 34 Yes last international 2007
z deburyn NO last international 2004
a thomas 32 NO not enough internationals
c willoughby 34 NO last international 2003
m goodwin 36 NO last international 2000
d smith 26 YES last international 2007
c collymore 31 YES last international 2007
j rudolph 28 YES last international 2006
g kruis 35 NO no internationals.

second division
w hinds 32 YES last international 2006
g flower 38 NO no international since 2004
g kruger 32 NO not enough internationals
g hodentt 27 NO no internationals
m van jaarsveldt NO no internationals since 2004
r mclaren 26 NO no internationals.
j kemp 31 YES last international 2007
h ackerman 36 NO last international since 1998
h dippinaar 32 YES last international 2007
c henderson 37 NO last international 2002
n dexter 25 NO No internationals
a hall 34 YES last international 2007
j venderwrath 31 YES last international 2007
N boje 36 YES last international 2006
a nel 32 YES last international 2008.
p collins 33 YES last international 26.

Rules is for kolpaks must have played for your country in the last 5 years.
Some of these players could try and qualify for england but thats another thing.

AFAIK those Kolpaks are able to play County Cricket without ramifications.

 

[morgieb]

Know Claude Henderson & Martin van Jaarsveld have taken out British citizenship, and it wouldn't surprise me if others can pick up passports in the EU too.

 

[Jamee999]

Inter-county movements have already started. As ever there's a heap of hopeless players (mostly bowlers) I hope might retire because they're doing neither themselves nor county cricket any good by playing.

Because earning money for playing a game = doing themselves no good?

 

[Richard]

All sorts of things you can earn money by doing - plenty of which pay a hell of a lot more than county cricket. What I mean in any case is doing their cricket no good by playing at county level, because they're patently not good enough to be doing so and nor ever will be.

And it's a drain on the game in this country to have money paid to players who are not good enough to enhance the system. That money should instead be invested lower down, in clubs, academies and practice facilities. Same applies to money paid to overseas players, on wages, air fares etc. who have no interest whatsoever in playing for England.

 

[Richard]

Steven Davies, Gareth Batty (Surrey), Murali Kartik (Somerset), Justin Langer (retiring), Lee Goddard (Derbyshire), James Pipe (retiring), Alan Richardson (Worcestershire), Kabir Ali (Hampshire), Mark Butcher, Andy Caddick, John Crawley, Jason Gallian, Mark Ealham (retiring), Billy Goldeman (Essex), HD Ackerman (released - probably retiring), Ajantha Mendis (Hampshire), Imran Tahir (released), Ryan McLaren (released - losing Kolpak status)

Where did you copy-paste that from?

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

All sorts of things you can earn money by doing - plenty of which pay a hell of a lot more than county cricket. What I mean in any case is doing their cricket no good by playing at county level, because they're patently not good enough to be doing so and nor ever will be.

And it's a drain on the game in this country to have money paid to players who are not good enough to enhance the system. That money should instead be invested lower down, in clubs, academies and practice facilities. Same applies to money paid to overseas players, on wages, air fares etc. who have no interest whatsoever in playing for England.

They may be substandard in your eyes (and I sympathise with this, there are some dire players on show in Division Two) but as long as there are 18 counties, there will be a certain number of players in the professional game. So saying they shouldn't be playing cricket because they aren't good enough doesn't really hold water, because they can't be replaced by anybody. It's like saying that the standard of teaching is substandard, so all that don't meet your expectations should be fired. As poor as they might be, they're employed for a reason: because they're better than the alternative.

Plus while there may be "sorts of things you can earn money by doing - plenty of which pay a hell of a lot more than county cricket", they aren't accessible to everyone playing county cricket. It might be that professional cricket will earn them more than any other career pragmatically accessible for them will. "Doing their own cricket no good" is also a bit of a non-argument: if it's your livelihood, your own form and winning trophies would come a distant second towards your general happiness and having a solid job.

 

[Jamee999]

But they're RUINING THEIR CAREER AVERAGES!!!!

 

[Richard]

To be ruined, something has to be at least vaguely decent ITFP.

 

[Richard]

They may be substandard in your eyes (and I sympathise with this, there are some dire players on show in Division Two) but as long as there are 18 counties, there will be a certain number of players in the professional game. So saying they shouldn't be playing cricket because they aren't good enough doesn't really hold water, because they can't be replaced by anybody. It's like saying that the standard of teaching is substandard, so all that don't meet your expectations should be fired. As poor as they might be, they're employed for a reason: because they're better than the alternative.

My gripe has always been that far too many professionals are employed. There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever for 18 First-Class counties to employ 20-odd pros each; 13-14 at best is sufficient, with the rest on part-time or season-long contracts (yes I realise this isn't easy when you're playing a game that is effectively five-days-a-week but there are those who do it - not every single player who appears in First-Class cricket every season has a county contract).

If fewer professionals, especially from overseas, were employed in county cricket the amount of money spent by counties on mediocrity at the present time would be vastly reduced, and more could be spent on aiming for excellence in the future. It would also encourage less chopping and changing, because there would be far less incentive to go outside your pro structure if large numbers of injury didn't force your hand.

While James Anyon, Gareth Andrew, Mark Turner and the like may be better than the best alternatives as far as playing is concerned, that doesn't make them worthy of being professionals.

Plus while there may be "sorts of things you can earn money by doing - plenty of which pay a hell of a lot more than county cricket", they aren't accessible to everyone playing county cricket. It might be that professional cricket will earn them more than any other career pragmatically accessible for them will.

I realise that, but cricket is by nature a short-term career anyway - it's not one that can sustain you for a whole lifetime unless you a) have a very short life or b) have been damn good at cricket (and by nature the sort of cricketers I'm on about haven't been). So the point is, by hanging on in pro cricket when you're not good enough you're merely delaying the inevitable. You're going to have to get another job sometime, and TBH everyone is best off if that's sooner rather than later.

 

[fredfertang]

C'mon Rich have a heart - if I could play the game well enough to be a journeyman county pro I'm sure I'd have done it for as long as I could and never given hope of progressing

A mate of mine's younger brother is assistant pro at a local golf club - he's 31 and has never got near the European tour yet - I made the mistake of saying to him once words to the effect of "but it's not as if you'll ever win the Open" ...... Ouch

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

My gripe has always been that far too many professionals are employed. There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever for 18 First-Class counties to employ 20-odd pros each; 13-14 at best is sufficient, with the rest on part-time or season-long contracts (yes I realise this isn't easy when you're playing a game that is effectively five-days-a-week but there are those who do it - not every single player who appears in First-Class cricket every season has a county contract).

I'd agree that counties probably have too many players on their books, but 13-14 appears a bit unrealistic. You can't have decent competition for places or a squad to match all conditions or strength in depth with that number. 18 would suit me fine. But many of the players you criticise below are more or less first team cricketers anyway. So those that we don't see are certainly to be worse. Plus there would be far less incentive for late developers or fringe players to even attempt to play professional cricket if there was no security. There would have to be a dramatic reform of the county game for this to change.

If fewer professionals, especially from overseas, were employed in county cricket the amount of money spent by counties on mediocrity at the present time would be vastly reduced, and more could be spent on aiming for excellence in the future. It would also encourage less chopping and changing, because there would be far less incentive to go outside your pro structure if large numbers of injury didn't force your hand.

Don't really buy this either. I'm not sure putting the amount of money saved from signing additional overseas pros etc would really improve the best young players who are coming through. In this country, the best talent is found and snapped up - it's not India or Pakistan where players will appear from nowhere. It might raise the standard of league cricket or youh cricket, but not much else.

I realise that, but cricket is by nature a short-term career anyway - it's not one that can sustain you for a whole lifetime unless you a) have a very short life or b) have been damn good at cricket (and by nature the sort of cricketers I'm on about haven't been). So the point is, by hanging on in pro cricket when you're not good enough you're merely delaying the inevitable. You're going to have to get another job sometime, and TBH everyone is best off if that's sooner rather than later.

Many cricketers stay in cricket and gain coaching qualifications while they play. There's all the UCCE system which many of the 'mediocre' players that you criticise will have come through, which ensures that they have some sort of qualification for the future. And if they don't have the potential to forge a degree-based or A-Level based career after their county career, however short it may be, then it's unlikely that the additional 10 years of employment will have really improved their earnings.

 

[Richard]

C'mon Rich have a heart - if I could play the game well enough to be a journeyman county pro I'm sure I'd have done it for as long as I could and never given hope of progressing

Hope you mean given-up hope...

Either way, I'm certainly not trying to be heartless and accuse people of being selfish or whatever. I'm just saying that it amazes me that anyone would be happy with season after season of averaging 40-50 (or, with bat, 25-30) and enjoying precious few days out. I reckon I'd be far happier playing at a level I could play every Saturday and\or Sunday and rip it up most games, while going off to do my job for the other five days per week.

Certainly no-one, surely, can deny that it is a serious handicap for the game in this country to have hundreds of full-time contracts paying players who, basically, are just there to make-up numbers? Surely everyone agrees that there would be better things to spend money on?

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

C'mon Rich have a heart - if I could play the game well enough to be a journeyman county pro I'm sure I'd have done it for as long as I could and never given hope of progressing

A mate of mine's younger brother is assistant pro at a local golf club - he's 31 and has never got near the European tour yet - I made the mistake of saying to him once words to the effect of "but it's not as if you'll ever win the Open" ...... Ouch

AWTA 100%. Live the dream.

 

[Richard]

I'd agree that counties probably have too many players on their books, but 13-14 appears a bit unrealistic. You can't have decent competition for places or a squad to match all conditions or strength in depth with that number. 18 would suit me fine. But many of the players you criticise below are more or less first team cricketers anyway. So those that we don't see are certainly to be worse. Plus there would be far less incentive for late developers or fringe players to even attempt to play professional cricket if there was no security. There would have to be a dramatic reform of the county game for this to change.

I made a list last season of players I considered were worthy and not of full-time contracts and "rookie" (ie, the Australian way of giving some reward to promising upcomers - enough to feel like relative riches at a young age - without breaking the bank). I posted it too - won't do so this season as it engendered far too much silly bickering, some of which I think you might just remember. But I'd say each county on average has 6-8 players of unquestionable first-team worth who should be playing full terms each year barring injury, then generally nearly twice the number who are pretty clearly never going to amount to much (I'd say 2-3 good years in someone's late-20s\early-30s is not really an investment worth making in terms of 10 years of paying for doing dreadfully). Maybe 13-14 is an unrealistic expectation, but I honestly don't believe there are more than that number per county in this country whose excellence at cricket merits any form of payment, full-time or incremental. It frankly astounds me that there are people I've grown-up with whose clubs offer them some form of financial incentive for runs\wickets.

Don't really buy this either. I'm not sure putting the amount of money saved from signing additional overseas pros etc would really improve the best young players who are coming through. In this country, the best talent is found and snapped up - it's not India or Pakistan where players will appear from nowhere. It might raise the standard of league cricket or youh cricket, but not much else.

The best talent (of those who are interested, anyway) may indeed mostly be found and snapped-up but there's absolutely no doubt it's often not nurtured as well as it could be. More investment in grass-roots coaching and practice facilities would go some way to remedying this.

And I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "work up from the bottom" (or similar). Raise the standard of league and youth cricket and you have the spur to excellence. It's precisely why Australia's cricket system has been the best in world cricket since, well, time immemorial pretty much.

Many cricketers stay in cricket and gain coaching qualifications while they play. There's all the UCCE system which many of the 'mediocre' players that you criticise will have come through, which ensures that they have some sort of qualification for the future. And if they don't have the potential to forge a degree-based or A-Level based career after their county career, however short it may be, then it's unlikely that the additional 10 years of employment will have really improved their earnings.

Aren't you just moreorless agreeing with me here? I can't find anything that really contradicts what I was saying.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

WRT the final bit (said all I want to about the other bit) - no, it's fundamentally different to your point. You're saying that by "delaying the inevitable" players are only hurting or not furthering their own chances in life; I'm saying that they may as well give it a go because if it doesn't work, even over a long-term period, they'll either by helped by forging a career in the game post-playing, or have a degree they gained while playing high-level uni cricket that they can put into practice and gain employment, or take up a job that isn't really rewarded by long service.

 

[Jakester1288]

I think 18 is the ideal number for a squad in county cricket. Your firsts team, plus a back up keeper, spinner, and 2 batsman and 3 seamers, or vica-verca.

Now I don't really know what's going on here, and I don't follow county cricket near as much as I would like to, but from what I've read, I mostly agree with Richard, except for the part where he said something along the lines of you'd rather play Saturday cricket and rip it up (yes, I know he said Sunday, but I'm changing it up to the Australian way), and work the other 5 days of the week. Playing a higher level cricket is more beneficial, probably more finiancially beneficial until you retire, and you obviously would learn more, and have more of a challenge. If I could play first grade and average 50, or play first class cricket for NSW (or any other state, I don't care as long as it gets me to that level), and average 25-30 (I'm obviously talking about batting), then I'd much rather do that. The coaching, people you meet, opportunities to do things, etc, would be so much better than working a boring job for 5 or more days a week and playing on a Saturday.

 

[Richard]

WRT the final bit (said all I want to about the other bit) - no, it's fundamentally different to your point. You're saying that by "delaying the inevitable" players are only hurting or not furthering their own chances in life; I'm saying that they may as well give it a go because if it doesn't work, even over a long-term period, they'll either by helped by forging a career in the game post-playing, or have a degree they gained while playing high-level uni cricket that they can put into practice and gain employment, or take up a job that isn't really rewarded by long service.

I'm not neccessarily saying players are hurting their chances of later-life employment; I'm saying they can't possibly benefit them and could conceivably damage them.

I'm saying that if a cricketer has failed to make it (talking clearly, obviously not up to it) by the age of 23-24 then I'd prefer them to go off and do something else. I think that's the best option for them and it's certainly the best option for the game.

The fact that many players who turn-out pretty useless at county level have played UCCE cricket beforehand, gaining a degree at the same time, so thus have some sort of insurance policy before diving headfirst into the game, in fact is an aide to the process of trial-and-elimination that I tend to favour.