[Jungle Jumbo]

Originally Posted by Richard

My gripe has always been that far too many professionals are employed. There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever for 18 First-Class counties to employ 20-odd pros each; 13-14 at best is sufficient, with the rest on part-time or season-long contracts (yes I realise this isn't easy when you're playing a game that is effectively five-days-a-week but there are those who do it - not every single player who appears in First-Class cricket every season has a county contract).

I'd agree that counties probably have too many players on their books, but 13-14 appears a bit unrealistic. You can't have decent competition for places or a squad to match all conditions or strength in depth with that number. 18 would suit me fine. But many of the players you criticise below are more or less first team cricketers anyway. So those that we don't see are certainly to be worse. Plus there would be far less incentive for late developers or fringe players to even attempt to play professional cricket if there was no security. There would have to be a dramatic reform of the county game for this to change.

If fewer professionals, especially from overseas, were employed in county cricket the amount of money spent by counties on mediocrity at the present time would be vastly reduced, and more could be spent on aiming for excellence in the future. It would also encourage less chopping and changing, because there would be far less incentive to go outside your pro structure if large numbers of injury didn't force your hand.

Don't really buy this either. I'm not sure putting the amount of money saved from signing additional overseas pros etc would really improve the best young players who are coming through. In this country, the best talent is found and snapped up - it's not India or Pakistan where players will appear from nowhere. It might raise the standard of league cricket or youh cricket, but not much else.

I realise that, but cricket is by nature a short-term career anyway - it's not one that can sustain you for a whole lifetime unless you a) have a very short life or b) have been damn good at cricket (and by nature the sort of cricketers I'm on about haven't been). So the point is, by hanging on in pro cricket when you're not good enough you're merely delaying the inevitable. You're going to have to get another job sometime, and TBH everyone is best off if that's sooner rather than later.

Many cricketers stay in cricket and gain coaching qualifications while they play. There's all the UCCE system which many of the 'mediocre' players that you criticise will have come through, which ensures that they have some sort of qualification for the future. And if they don't have the potential to forge a degree-based or A-Level based career after their county career, however short it may be, then it's unlikely that the additional 10 years of employment will have really improved their earnings.