Recognise this bloke? Neither do we. Apparently he’s Michael Klinger, Worcs’ new overseas signing
Following on from guest writer Garreth Duncan’s article about Durham, which took a romantic and misty eyed look at county cricket, we’d like to re-establish a prevailing sense of cynicism and exasperation by looking at one of the less satisfying aspects of the modern county game: overseas players.
One of the things I admire about Durham is the depth and quality of youngsters they’ve produced over the years. They haven’t relied on Kolpak signings like some counties (let’s not stink up the website by mentioning their names) and they’re progressive in every sense. They’ve got a good academy, they’ve developed a fantastic stadium and they’re ambitious.
However, not every county has Durham’s resources – and consequently they’re going nowhere, fast. Of course, it’s not always their fault. Many counties are simply struggling to make ends meet. However, one thing they can control is the number of overseas players they sign during a single season.
Can anyone actually keep up with who is playing where – and for how long – these days? Many counties seem to have a new overseas pro every month.
If a club is languishing at the foot of the second division (and they’re in no danger of relegation) do they actually need an overseas pro at all? Surely it would be better to give young local players a game, save money on big salaries, and build a young team that might get them promoted a few years down the line.
Wouldn’t this benefit England in the long term too? After all, it’s the shared money from England matches that keeps these smaller clubs alive.
That’s why I was somewhat underwhelmed by the news that came out of New Road yesterday. In case you didn’t know, Worcestershire – the team I support – had signed the Aussie opener Phil Hughes (yes, he of the appalling technique) for the whole of the 2012 season.
Unfortunately however, because Australia currently rely on a glorified slogger and an injury prone all-rounder to open the batting, Hughes is still in the international reckoning.
Worcestershire were hoping that Hughes wouldn’t be needed by Australia this year – he has, after all, done everything in his power to get dropped. However, because the Canary Yellows have decided they need him in April and May, he’s going to miss the first few weeks of the country season. Hey ho.
Well, actually it’s oh no. Steve ‘Bumpy’ Rhodes (ah yes, remember the days when cricket nicknames were actually quite funny?) announced yesterday that instead of giving a young English player a go, we’ve signed South Australia’s 31 year old captain, Michael Klinger (no, we’ve never heard of him either) as cover.
My question to Bumpy (who would probably be labelled ‘Rhodesy’ if he was playing for England these days) is as followers: why?
What good can it possibly do English cricket to bring Klinger to New Road for a few weeks? By all accounts he’s a solid but unspectacular batsman, but one who is never going to play for Australia. He’s hardly going to pull in the crowds.
In my opinion, it was bad enough signing Hughes. What has English cricket got to gain from letting a young Australian opener, who might well open the batting in next year’s Ashes series, from familiarising himself with English conditions?
Hughes wasn’t exactly convincing in the 2009 series over here, so he’s probably champing at the bit to have another crack.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not against overseas players per se. I used to love the days when real county men like Courtney Walsh used to turn out for Gloucestershire every season. They were committed to the cause and were part of the furniture.
These days, however, overseas stars get shipped in and out of our domestic game like football managers do at Chelsea. Are they anything more than mercenaries?
Of course, Worcestershire’s argument would be that they want to maintain their division one status – and that Hughes’ runs (if he actually manages to score any) will help. That’s totally understandable. Worcs only stayed up last year due to the skill, cunning (and elbow) of Saeed Ajmal.
However, bringing Klinger to New Road as cover shows a remarkable lack of faith in the club’s younger players. It just doesn’t sit right with me.
And besides, the number of overseas pros who play county cricket for a couple of weeks before buggering off again – only to be replaced by another faceless South African or Australian who plays two matches and then disappears – plays absolute havoc with my fantasy cricket team.
Does anyone else feel the same way?
James Morgan
Morgs, Klinger is a gun. I think it makes more sense for counties to go for players like him- he’s 31, knows his game and is very highly thought of in Australia. Plus he’s not in the frame for international cricket so his availability will be better and he will cost less. There are a lot of guys like him around in Australia who are vastly experienced but were unlucky to be at the peak of their careers when Australia had an amazing side but are now too old. I think he is a sensible signing and will do well if he can adapt to early season English conditions. I saw him score runs in a day/night game at the MCG and he was class.
I take your point about home grown players though but also having him around will hopefully benefit the youngsters as well.
Hi Luke. If that’s the case (he averages 41 in first class cricket I believe) Worcs should have signed Klinger for the whole season, rather than Hughes – whose experiences this summer could come back to bite England on the bum.
My main problem is the chopping and changing. I don’t think counties should be able to recruit an overseas pro for a few weeks. When the established pro goes away for a while, or gets injured, a county should use it as an opportunity to blood a youngster. I can’t imagine any other country denying a local youngster a chance in order to play overseas guys who often aren’t much better than seasoned county players anyway. I certainly don’t think it would happen in Australia.
I don’t disagree with you- chopping and changing does cause problems of continuity and in an ideal world a youngster would be blooded. It definitely wouldn’t happen in Australia either. However with our domestic structure money talks, with the 2nd Division sides all scrapping to get into Div 1 and claim the financial incentives associated with that. I would imagine the smaller clubs like Worcs and Derby would be even more keen to do this given the publicity of late of there being too many counties (in the eyes of some). I think Klinger would represent a better choice than Hughes- Hughes did well for Middlesex when he burst on the scene initially. However I think his technique has been found out to a certain extent and that he would struggle, particularly early season. Off the top of my head I think Klinger has gone from strength to strength since his move from Victoria to South Australia, so with any luck you should be getting him on the crest of a wave.
The current situation with overseas/Kolpak players owes a lot to central contracts. Allowing a lot more non-England-eligible players was the quid pro quo for letting the England set-up control their best players on a permanent basis.
Also, the modern international schedule means that the days of having Viv or Courtney or Allan Donald for the whole summer, year after year, have sadly gone.
Of course, in those days, ordinary county players used to get the chance of playing against the best in the world on a regular basis. Potential Test batsmen got the chance to see how they fared against Wasim and Waqar, Curtly and Courtney, Donald and Pollock. I suppose that’s the only argument in favour of having these internationals on short-term signings these days, but it’s hardly the same. The Australian domestic league doesn’t seem to suffer from a lack of overseas players….
On the one hand I like to see overseas players come into our county game. they seem to up their game when they play here and the variety they bring gives games that can often be a little flat another dimension.
What troubles me is that the pay they attract these days is one symptom of a much more endemic problem.
The influx of money into the game has given everyone the misguided belief that they are suddenly worth more money. This leads to a widening of the gap between the richer and the poorer teams which results in less open competition between all teams. I think you could safely bet that one of four or five teams will win all the prizes this year as there are only four or five teams (probably less if I’m honest) who can afford to pay the salaries of the people who bring the wins.
As a Lancs supporter it has been great to see them succeed last year in the championship. They have certainly benefitted from playing their home games on out grounds with result pitches but I worry for the future of the club going forward. Having an international standard ground means that ticket prices must go up, membership must increase and teams must contain the big names that win games and bring big sponsors.
Cricket is far less well placed than Football to be able to sustain the influx of cash that is coming in the next few years. I can see a lot of counties shooting for the stars and ending up backing the wrong horses. I would hate to see any county liquidated but my fear is that without salary caps, turnover/profit percentages and very stringent regulation, that is exactly what we will see. When journalists and blogs like this dissect those failures in the future you will be able to trace a clear line back from liquidation,through bankruptcy right to the feet of decidedly average overseas players who came and took the money simply because it was there.
MHA here. The fundamental reason the ECB need to sell TV rights to Sky is to generate the cash to keep counties afloat; remember that to all intents and purposes the FC counties *are* the ECB, because they have 18 of the 19 votes.
The counties say they need the money to sustain the grass roots, but they seem to find the werewithal to fork out for expensive but obscure overseas imports, which they need to compete with their rivals on the field. In essence, Sky pay for these foreign journeymen, and in turn it’s actually us paying for them, because we pay Sky. And the benefit to English cricket is…?
In football you can justify bringing in pricey ringers from abroad because of European competitions, but that principle does not apply in cricket.
Another reason the counties need imports is because there are too few experienced English players to make up the numbers across eighteen counties. If there were fewer counties, that would far less be the case.
I suspect the answer, at least partly, might be for the ECB to lay down strict rules on how many foreign – and by that I mean not eligible to play for England – players are permitted in each team. As a starting bid I would suggest nine players of every starting XI should be eligible for England selection.
What the ECB would have to give the counties in exchange is anyone’s guess. Probably another 987,000 T20s each a season.
A very neat solution assuming it’s legal under EUSSR law.