The Kolpak Effect

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by greg

Perhaps we should take the counties to court for infringing our human right to watch English players in county cricket.

Is that right enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights?

hmm...a pity the Belgians don't play cricket!

[joeguy]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...re/5395680.stm

I have no doubt at all that one of the reasons that Darren Maddy, Leicestershires most consistent player over the last five years (IMO), is looking for a move, must be due to being over looked for the Captaincy and seeing HD Ackerman (a Kolpak selection) chosen as skipper two years ago.

Hang on a minute, why would Kolpak be the reason and not the fact that he is reaching the end of his career and besides the fact that Durham in addition to the two Counties mentioned were after Maddy, Leicester are among the worst payers in County cricket! He needs to cash in now, he is not going to play for England again, he needs to make good while his body is still able.

I think it is laughable to blame Kolpak which has if anything strengthened English cricket at the expense of some weak local players who will never make it to the highest level. Let's not forget, there are 18 first class Counties at which a player can get a contract unlike SA, NZ or Oz who have just 6. Those young English players that do get a run will be playing against stronger opposition thanks to Kolpak.

As for the failed overseas signings, that is just generally a lack of research on the part of the Counties. Signing Steyn so early in his career was idiotic as was the signing of Tate! Different conditions require different types of players.

Is anyone arguing that Paul Harris was a bad signing at Warks? Giles will be lucky to make that side next season!

[Alison]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

But they don't need to hire them. There is no compulsion to do so.

No, they don't have to hire them, I agree with that, but they cannot make an agreement to only use x number of Kolpak players, and they cannot use it as a reason without getting into trouble under employment law.

[joeguy]

It is my understanding that there is in effect already a limit to the number of Kolpaks and that is one. From what I understand of the regulations, deductions from the ECB grant begin if you play less than 8 England qualified players in each game. That's 2 overseas and one Kolpak or "EU/British passport" overseas.

[flanflinger]

Sadly you can include as many Kolpaks as you like.

It is my understanding that you could field (this season) two genuine overseas players, and nine kolpaks.

You could end up with a situation like in premiership football where you don't actually field one home grown player!!

What I would say is that there should be more incentives from the ECB to produce and develop home grown players over Kolpaks.

[joeguy]

correct ff, you could this season play 11 kolpak players if you wanted but realistically nobody is going to do that. The members would not be too happy and it would be a very short term view to take.

All the fines do is make it unaffordable for the smaller Counties but big Counties will continue to sign up Kolpak players when the right one comes along. They will further poach any young talent developed at small Counties like Leics, Derby, etc. who can't afford to hold on to what they have. The smaller Counties will always be weak and now they will not be able to afford to sign up Kolpak players to bolster their side after their losses or just strengthen their side in order to win trophies and retain young local talent....the "cycle of poverty" for those who studied economics

[flanflinger]

Joe,

The way I would incentives teams is also based on economics. At present all the Counties get a proportion of the Test money and TV rights (the Test match grounds get more naturally) what I would do is base the proportion of money on how many Test players they produced, how many academy players they produce and the % make up of the team over a season that is made up of England Qualified players.

So team that produces two test players, an academy player and have 90% of it's players available to play for England will get more of the Test funding - generated by the England team

While a team that has 3 Kolpaks and does not have players representing England will get less.

However, a team that does not have a player selected by England, but has 90% English qualified players will get a decent percentage of the money pool.


Consequently, a county can choose to play Kolpaks, but they will get a reduction in the Test money they receive, they will then need to way up their books and see what is better financially. But as Test cricket is one of the major factors in a counties financial success, I would imagine that Kolpaks would disappear very quickly indeed.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

what I would do is base the proportion of money on how many Test players they produced, how many academy players they produce and the % make up of the team over a season that is made up of England Qualified players.

So team that produces two test players, an academy player and have 90% of it's players available to play for England will get more of the Test funding - generated by the England team

I'm inclined to agree with much of that , FF. I'm not sure about basing anything on the number of Test players. I do feel that there is, and has always been, a bias towards certain counties. At present it appears you only have to be half decent at Durham to get a call up but elswhere you might have to be superman (Hampshire springs to mind). The counties represented by members of the selection committee will always be preferred (not necessarily on purpose but sub-consciously).

[joeguy]

good in theory ff BUT how far back are you going to look to see if a county produced a player? Let's look at say young Broad.

Tomorrow Warks go to him and say "lad, here's 30k more than Leics are offering, come play for us". Next season Broad becomes a full member of the England team and plays one-dayers and tests for the next 10 years. Who gets the ECB money?

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by joeguy

good in theory ff BUT how far back are you going to look to see if a county produced a player? Let's look at say young Broad.

KP is a similar case. I always laugh when he's described as a Hampshire player! Hampshire haven't really had value for money out of him, have they?