Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Oz Horse's avatar

The rugby analogy isn't comparing 'apples-to-apples'. In rugby, the player's prime commitment needs to be to their 'club', as this is where they get most of their income and where they play most of their games. In cricket, the player's prime commitment needs to be to their country,

as this is where their bread is buttered. A rugby international season is 2 months long. An international cricket season is 10 months long. That's what makes it difficult to let players commit themselves to County cricket, make that their primary commitment, and then expect to play for SA as well.

Cricket needed a mechanism to reduce the 'Kolpak' flow, and the chance of playing for your country (or more specifically denying it to Kolpaks) was the best mechanism available. If that wasn't the case, you would end up with 20 more players doubling (or more) their income by playing Country cricket, and SA would have to field a C or D team for any games between April and September. And then the 'stars' just walk back in for the SA summer? That's not going to work. Not often I say this, but I think CSA got this one right.

Expand full comment
Stephen Williams's avatar

After all the wilderness years and return to cricket via Donald, Pollock etc and becoming a force in the game - the governance of cricket in SA is heading backwards with the attitude towards players of great quality. Such a shame !!

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts