It was with great interest that I read Michael Atherton’s column this weekend for he was dissecting a document put forward by Neil Davidson, the Leicestershire chairman, which was looking at the way the county championship could better serve the national side.
I have long been an advocate of looking at how we could change a decent system for the better and applaud the lengths Davidson has gone to in obtaining statistical evidence to back up his conclusions.
I do find it strange, however, that he is examining the county championship and how restructuring it might improve the emergence of more potential Test players, when it is our one-day game that needs more urgent attention. While many of his conclusions will apply to the one-day game, too, a more holistic approach to the state of our domestic game would have been more compelling.
Advertisement
Davidson’s evidence points to the fact that with very few exceptions, players who go on to enjoy productive Test careers (50 caps or more) enter Test cricket by the time they are 25. For that to happen young talent should be exposed to first-class cricket between the ages of 17-19 and have learnt the ropes by 23 so they can be fast-tracked into the Test side by 25. His analysis tells us that in 2006 only 15 English-qualified players under the age of 19 played in the championship and that eight counties played none at all. Counties played on average only 1.9 English qualified players 23 and under, and only 3.1 who were 25 and under, which “as a development pipeline is insufficient to serve the needs of the England team.”
I have no problem with his conclusion that this is because counties are driven by the need to achieve financial viability and on-field success. Absolutely right. Counties are businesses - just ask Mark Newton, the Worcestershire chief executive, who is trying to keep the New Road club afloat in all senses of the word.
Advertisement
The issue that I have with Davidson is that he lays the blame for blocking our youngsters not at the door of the multitude of overseas and Kolpak players, whom he suggests raise the standard of play, but at the older English- qualified county stalwarts, who apparently are more attractive to counties under the current structure because there is no penalty for playing them.
The likes of Dominic Cork (to use Atherton’s example) and Mark Ramprakash are therefore the most sought after players as they are good, are no longer going to play for England and don’t saddle counties with unnecessary financial burden.
Does Davidson really believe this to be the case or is this a position to justify all the Kolpak players running around Grace Road? Firstly age should be no barrier to playing for England. Davidson need look no further than Paul Nixon, his own wicketkeeper, for evidence of that. Secondly, surely a lot of these senior players have England’s best interests at heart, raise the standard and can pass on valuable advice to emerging youngsters.
Advertisement
Finally, even with financial penalties effectively imposed against them, Kolpaks are often preferred to senior English-qualified players as they are still cheaper. I’m guessing, but you could probably get three Kolpak players for Corkie’s wage. South Africans, in particular, are competitive in the market place courtesy of a healthy exchange rate, while many of the younger ones believe they will one-day return to play for their country so are prepared to see their time with a first-class county as an investment.
This issue on Kolpaks apart I’m broadly in favour with some of his solutions. Davidson suggests showcase academies to run throughout the summer holidays to identify talent at school age, which is fine but doesn’t address the lack of quality cricket coaching in schools (something Chance to Shine is trying to remedy); a senior showcase academy to run concurrently; a salary capping system, which, while it has a lot of merit, will not get past the veto of the Test match grounds; and making it compulsory for counties to play a minimum of four English-qualified players under 25.
Advertisement
I would suggest this last measure would work better in the one-day competitions and I’d go further by instigating a regional under 25 one-day competition to replace the pro40.
Overseas dominate Twenty20
If more evidence were needed as to the detrimental long-term impact kolpaks and overseas players could have on our national one-day side, we need look no further than the Twenty20 group matches. These games are big money spinners for the counties and earning a home quarter-final is estimated at being worth £100,000. They are pressure games played in front of big crowds, the perfect learning environment for aspiring young England players. The problem, however, is that at crunch times in these games captains are turning to their overseas instead of them.
Advertisement
At Warwickshire, Heath Streak, Paul Harris and Tim Groenewald bowled 3/5 of their overs. Similarly at Kent, Yasir Arafat, Morne Morkel and Ryan McLaren dominated proceedings including the vital death overs.
Somerset had Justin Langer, Cameron White and Craig Kieswetter in their top five batsmen just as Yorkshire had Gerald Brophy, Younis Khan and Jacques Rudolph and Durham: Michael Di Venuto, Dale Benkenstein and Scott Styris.