Yesterday it was announced that the Home Office has put new rules into effect that will, effectively, signal the end of the ‘Kolpak’ player in English county cricket. Kolpak players are so called because of a legal case brought before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where it was decided that players from outside of the European Union should be treated as though they were EU citizens, so long as their country of origin had signed associated trade agreements. EU citizens, under existing law, are permitted to seek employment anywhere they want within the EU – overt rules preventing this are inevitably struck down as restrictions of trade by the ECJ.
For cricketing purposes this meant that non-EU born players could play freely for English county sides without breaching rules on the number of overseas players allowed per squad (currently two, although it used to be one). The upshot of this development was to enable county sides to sign up as many ex-South African and West Indian test players in an effort to boost their bid for silverware – potentially a very useful source of income for the cash-starved county teams. This legal loophole has now been closed, however, with the ECB (England Cricket Board) citing the stifling of English-born talent as the main justification for the new rules. I’m not convinced this has been thought through properly.
First and foremost, the arrival of Kolpak players had unquestionably raised the standard of English county cricket. Notable additions include Dwayne Smith (Sussex), Jacques Rudolph (Yorkshire) and Martin van Jaarsveld (Kent). These are established, talented players who the crowds love to watch in action. Unfortunately country cricket has been suffering from supporter apathy in all corners, albeit slightly improved by the innovation of Twenty20 cricket (a shorter, sharper version of the game that you can attend after work). This newer form of the game means that crowd-pleasing players are at a premium – anything to increase gate receipts and raise the overall level of interest in the domestic game among potential punters is king in modern cricket. The other thing to consider is that no club would, in their right mind, hire a Kolpak player who didn’t improve the squad they have to work with. As the available talent pool increased, this theoretically allowed more teams to compete for the ‘lucrative’ trophies on offer. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the counties were resistant to calls from the governing body to self-regulate in the numbers of Kolpak players they employed.
So the ECB decided it would step in, firstly by offering significant financial benefits to the counties playing English-qualified players on a pro rata basis. This actually reduced the numbers of foreign ringers on the county circuit last season, but these new regulations will be in force as of next season - and they will eliminate the element of choice for the counties. The only exemptions from the rule will be if the player has played one Test match in the previous two years, or five in the past five; so a fair chunk of Kolpak players remaining in the country for last season will now be excluded in the coming one.
The ECB’s main argument for restrictions on Kolpak players lies in the development of future England stars. They believe that the foreign influx was choking the number of free slots in county 1st teams for up and coming youngsters, thus having a detrimental effect on the next generation of talent. However, it seems very short sighted to remove several of the best players in the country when the aim is to ensure the next England hopefuls step into the national side having learnt their trade at a decent level. Unfortunately it is well documented that England produces far too many average professional players, and it is idle to blame this on the lack of availability of First Class cricket to the best and brightest.
The main issue here seems to be that there is too much room for the journeymen. It cannot be argued that Kolpak players are keeping young English players out of county sides, and therefore the national side. Potential England players are identified very early in their development (plus they are in a tiny minority), and due to the inflated number of First Class teams there is no prospect of them being starved of opportunities to prove themselves at the top domestic level. These youngsters cost counties less than the Kolpaks - they are not yet established, so they command lower salaries. If a county has the choice between a young English player and an established Kolpak player of equal ability, they will choose the Englishman ten times out of ten.
To illustrate my point, take a look at Joe Denly of Kent. He is considered to be one of the more talented players of his generation to have risen through the ranks there, and this has been recognised with a string of England caps opening the batting. He had learnt his aggressive shot-playing style alongside Kolpak player Martin van Jaarsveld, who still regularly lights up the domestic forty and twenty overs-a-side games with the same swashbuckling power hitting. Similar domestic opportunities have been afforded to other youngsters in the Kent set up, but they have failed to impress in the same way as they do not time their shots as well as, or have as good an eye for the ball as Denly. As a Kent fan it’s disappointing that he hasn’t replicated his Kent form for the national side, but it supports my argument nonetheless. Assuming another lesser young English batsmen played week in week out for Kent in place of the likes of van Jaarsveld, who could say the England team would benefit from that when it has yet to reap tangible rewards from Kent’s brightest young talent breaking into the team? It is early days in Denly’s international career, and I still think he will show everybody what the fuss is about, but why force more young English players on the counties just for the sake of it? I feel the younger players will suffer from a relative lack of ex-world class role models to learn the innumerable mental or technical nuances of the game from. How will the England team improve if its next front-line bowlers are used to knocking over schoolboys in the County Championship 1st Division instead of ex-Test batsmen? It also cannot really be said that the England team was much better prior to the Kolpak ruling coming into effect in 2004. The Test team has, by most measures, improved since then, although the One Day team still suffers from crippling inconsistency. A sad fact of teams in all sports is that they tend to go in cycles; all it takes is for a couple more Kevin Pietersens to be born (actually in this country this time, preferably…), and then the ECB’s policies will mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.
The ECB seems to have a habit of scoring own goals, the most recent one of course being its laughable association with Allen Stanford. Relevant to this article it may not be, but if they genuinely wish to improve the England team’s fortunes (and Stanford really is as passionate about cricket as he says) maybe the ECB should have persuaded him to invest in grass roots coaching of the sport rather than vulgar multi-million Dollar showpieces in the middle of a recession. Alternatively they could take the badly needed move to cut down the number of First Class teams currently competing in the English domestic leagues. The dilution of talent in this country was at its most painfully evident during the recent Twenty20 Champions League, where Somerset and Sussex were savagely taken to pieces by their overseas counterparts. A cursory glance at nearly all other team sheets in this competition would reveal five or six current or recent ex-Internationals, with the ‘best of the rest’ backing them up. Frankly the Australian New South Wales side would give the current England team a very good run for their money, especially in the shorter formats of the game. Because fewer teams compete in the foreign leagues, only the very best players available actually get to ply their trade at a professional level. The collateral damage caused by a reduction in number of English domestic teams would be to cull vast swathes of the current livestock.... but life is unfair. In times of trouble, difficult decisions need to be made, and redundancies are virtually inevitable when mergers and restructuring take place. I cannot see this option being taken though; the ECB would need agreement from the counties first. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, but now the quality of their individual teams has been so brutally compromised in this way, it is about time this decision was taken out of their hands.
Posts
