Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Counties split on their overseas commuters

Stephen Fay
Sunday 05 October 2003 00:00 BST
Comments

The vital vote is too close to call. On Thursday the 18 first-class counties will decide whether to cut the number of top overseas cricketers they may hire in 2005 from two to one. The vote is emblematic of the priorities of county cricket. The choice is between commercially attractive cricketers from abroad - Murali-tharan, Warne, Waugh - and the young English players they keep out of county teams.

The Professional Cricketers' Association last week argued firmly for a limit of one overseas player. But they admit that they are powerless to influence a second source of players from overseas - those who obtain European Union passports. An unscientific survey of chief executives of county clubs suggests that, if the vote were left to them, they would stick to two. But the votes on the First Class Forum are cast by county chairmen, not chief executives. Smart money says powerful voices will sway a small majority to cut imports. "Chairmen flow like a tide," says the chief executive of Somerset, Peter Anderson.

The PCA define the problem like this: "Overseas players under current regulations are too great a strain on resources... [and they] deprive home-grown players of oppor-tunities." Their campaign is backed by statistical evidence. They counted 55 contracts to overseas players last summer, with counties such as Yorkshire and Durham flying them in and out depending on availability and injury. The PCA state that, without reform, the number of overseas players could rise to 70.

The PCA report got a mixed reception. "A very good document, well reasoned," says Worcestershire's Mark Newton. "It's not a matter for them," growls Anderson.

The players' union also counted 22 players playing last summer because they have an EU passport, even though they are ineligible to play for England. They fear that number could rise to between 30 and 40, and they are digesting the implications of a new EU ruling which seems likely to ease the passage of cricketers from countries such as South Africa into county cricket, no matter what the chairmen decide.

Chief executives are conscious of an irony. It is that the rising number of EU players actually increases the chance of a vote in favour of only one overseas player.

The counties had been converted to the idea of increasing the quota from one to two good cricketers from overseas two years ago. Their fear was that more than 20 central contracts would remove too many top players from the county game. But the ECB can no longer afford so many contracts, and there is more overseas choice among EU passport-holders. "It means I'm much more amen-able to change," says Newton, who remains in favour of two overseas players because of their entertainment value, but could live with a reduced quota.

Anderson is a free market-eer. "Our English Test players have to be replaced, and if we can't sign overseas players for a season, we'll fly them in and out." Last week, Somerset announced that Australia's one-day captain, Ricky Ponting, will commute to Taunton next summer, playing when he can.

But chief executives are necessarily less sentimental than their chairmen. Steve Coverdale at Northamptonshire explains their dilemma: "We are told that the job of the counties is to produce Test players, but my job does not depend on how many England players we produce, but how many trophies we win."

However, a Slovenian handball player named Lopak may yet alter the tone of the debate. Lopak, who plays in Germany, did not like being classified as an overseas player. He took his case to court, which judged that, since he had resident status in Germany, he was eligible as a home player.

The ruling almost certainly applies to players from South Africa, Zimbabwe and the West Indies. Once they estab-lish resident status, they are qualified like any native Brit. One agent is already hawking names around the counties. Lopak may make the current debate redundant.

Of course, the counties could deny themselves the freedom to hire EU players. But that option is not on the agenda on Thursday.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in