KF on Scottish Cricket (part 1 of a continuing series)

From KF [please note that the views expressed in this post are those of the author and not necessarily those of Holy Cross ACC]

In recognition of the thousands of responses I've had from fans to my Ashes comments, I've decided to spout forth with my incredible views on other subjects. First in the firing line is something closer to home after the 1st XI game against Heriots on Saturday. The issue of 'paid' players in Scottish Cricket.

Steve Knox has played minor counties, opened the batting for Scotland, been a pro at a couple of Scottish clubs and is statistically 2nd top amateur in the SNCL as well as being in the overall top 10 batsmen, averaging over 50. I think its fair to say he is as good a batsman as there is in Scotland and for the purposes of this spiel can be ranked at 'professional' level.

On Saturday he batted no differently than I remember. Solid technique, concentration and dedication. Nothing too eye-catching, flamboyant or 'different class'. Our bowling attack kept him well on his toes and could have had him out a few times before he succumbed to Braveheart Russell. He was of course hampered by injury (though he fielded well at cover). My point is that his performance against us gave a pretty fair reflection of how good we'd be against a pro. With Knox, Heriots 2's can compete with 2nd/3rd place, without, they are rock bottom of the league and we'd have surely rolled them over with ease!!!

In my previous life at Penicuik CC, I came up against pros all the time, as well as always playing alongside one. I feel this allows me to reasonably compare us with teams who include pros. In these types of games, it is usually pro v pro and the top scoring pro is usually on the winning side. It would be interesting to see some stats on this (we of course proved the exception on Saturday). I'm sure the top 12 or so sides in the SNCL do have a bit more depth than just their pros, but below that level, the reliance on pros give many teams a very false league position. Often players are attracted from a good side with no pro, to a similar local rival who do have a pro. i.e. since Penicuik joined the National League, they have been able to get quality youngsters from the likes of Hawick and St Boswells who want to play National League that otherwise wouldn't have transferred. Before Penicuik, when Kelso joined the National League, a similar transferring of players occurred, weakening the Border League in the process. This weakens local rivals and arguably falsely inflates the club with a financial advantage or to put it another way, the club who have won their league by being able to afford a better pro than their rivals.

When I say pros I roughly mean a pro and an overseas 'amateur'. I believe you are classed a pro if you are given any financial inducement even down to the likes of travel costs, i.e. many amateurs arrive here and live with the official pro, how can there be an absolute separation? If nobody had pros we'd compete with many sides. If we had pros and SNCL teams played us without their pros (effectively if our position and that of a team with pro's was reversed) we'd win many more than we'd lose. But it would be because of the pro rather than Pickering, Bonfield, Ellis or anyone else for that matter (sorry chaps).

I'm not against pros at all. They are a massive help to the development of players, I watched this first hand at Penicuik where with little or no SCU/cricketscotland assistance, they/we produced 3 Scotland cricketers (including 1 county player) with a lot of help from the pro they/we paid for them/ourselves (sorry for this dualism, I was there when it went on, but am not now, so am not sure how to refer to us/them). There is no reason pros couldn't do this at every club as far as I can see thereby undoubtedly raising the standard of the indigenous player. So please don't get rid of pros.

Knox made a fantastic difference in the field for Heriots, both with his own fielding, but also with his field placings. Pro standard players quite obviously raise general standards. More than anyone else on Saturday, Knox ensured the game went to the last ball when we were surely a far superior team to Heriots 2nds. Personally speaking any skills I have as captain did not come from locals at Penicuik, only from the hired guns they/we employed. Actually, on re-reading this, any good skills I had/have as captain came from pros, I learned loads of what not to do from locals. Read what you like into the statement that only an idiot couldn't learn from a good pro!!!!

However, if pros are such a major influence on the results of a team and put teams in false positions, what good is that for league cricket? It is the equivalent of us picking a 1st XI for Division 8 which I think would be a waste of time. Top of the batting and bowling stats in Division 1 is the Edin Accies pro. This puts Accies in a totally false position. They win the league, go up to the National League, keep a pro and are somehow better than half the teams in East League Division 1 whom they can't beat without a pro!!! Seems absurd to me. We need people to be playing at 'their' level. If it is the case that it is the richest clubs that rise to the top, why restrict it to one officially paid player per team, forcing clubs to bend rules to 'pay' more players?

Solution; stop limiting pros per team. It is obvious that some teams 'pay' more than 1 player and it is equally obvious that it is next to impossible to prove this. So if a team wants to or is able to pay folk to play, let them. I think this is an almost inevitable next step from the current fudged position. And if teams don't want to or can't pay pro's, it shouldn't adversely affect them, I believe they'd still find their level just below the paid ranks, exactly where our 1st XI find themselves just now.

The main benefit would be more even games and more honesty between clubs and administrators. Fortunately, in the East League, very few teams have a pro and we therefore play at a pretty 'fair' level so it isn't too much of an issue for us. But we are in the 4th-5th level of Scottish cricket (if you amalgamated the top regional divisions). Above our level it is too often pro v pro. Is 1 pro and 10 fielders v 2 pro's and 9 fielders more sensible than 11 pros v 11 pros? While this may mean top clubs playing fewer homegrown youths behind better imports, these youths would get more cricket at 2nd team level, say East League Div 1 (instead of a promising young spinner being destroyed by a Regan West type) before progressing up to a professional standard. Why should one player get £5k, a house, Sky TV and a car to play on a Saturday, while the rest pay subs and match fees and petrol costs for the privilege of standing at the non-strikers end?

Suppose Corstorphine, Cricketscotland or a sponsor were paying Ozzy Malik by the run, wicket, run out or catch, would that be something that discouraged his enthusiasm or dedication? Would it not allow him to devote more time to completely fulfilling his potential? Would it not be better for him, the league's he plays in and ultimately the National side? Am I RIGHT???????

I'm off to lie down again. Gracious and agreeable comments only please. So nothing from Smudger.

Evidently Sandy Strang reads our blog:
http://sport.scotsman.com/cricket/Scottish-cricket-Overseas-pros-still.5519649.jp