Mine stays firmly down, though the latest signing by Derbyshire seems to be a young player of considerable talent, highly-rated as a quick left-arm bowler of some potential. At 21 he has time to get much better and from the videos I have seen of him, he looks capable of pushing for a first team spot.
I think I saw him at the 3aaa County Ground in the last game of the season, against Sussex. Dave Houghton was showing a young man around and I am sure it was Cohen. He played a couple of games for Nottinghamshire second eleven earlier in the summer and is no doubt another who is taking an opportunity to get out of South Africa while the chance is there and his prospects are stymied by the quota system.
We must be wary of getting carried away, however. Most of his cricket back home has been at semi-professional level, with limited exposure to franchise cricket with the Cape Cobras. Having said that, much the same could have been said about Leus du Plooy, and if this works out as well, few will complain.
Actually some might, as happened within minutes of the news going on Twitter.
'Another Kolpak at Derbyshire' cried some, while for others it was 'yet we let young local talent slip away'.
To which I would say this. First, the ECB gave no encouragement to the recruitment of young English players in The Hundred, so an example to follow has hardly been established. Most players recruited were overseas, Kolpak or experienced, with few sides taking a punt on a young man making a name in the game from this country. This would have been very easy for the ECB to enforce, by insisting squads had to include three under-25s, for example.
Second, from what I can see, Cohen is some distance ahead of Alfie Gleadall and James Taylor in his development. As I have previously written, we don't have the budget to let a couple of lads play second team cricket all summer, yet be some distance from senior standard. It is a harsh reality of the modern game. Surrey can afford to do it, like other big clubs, but we need a lean squad in which everyone could realistically play without any detriment to the standard.
Third, it appears to be fine that Surrey can sign Hashim Amla, but not for us to pick up a young player with a reputation to make. I acknowledge that Amla is a legend, but the rationale of signing him, as well as Dilshan, didn't leave any lasting legacy at Derbyshire. Nor, for that matter, signing Imran Tahir. I don't buy into the idea that everyone will want to watch Amla more than a young unknown either. Just ask those who watched and thrilled at the contribution of du Plooy last year to get backing for that assertion.
Fourth, counties need to improve and find players where they can. With most of them losing a lot of players to the new competition, fringe players at these clubs will be needed to play at least in the RLODC. There is, one would assume less likelihood of a season-long loan for squad players, when you know you will need them down the line.
My ideal, like all of you, would be a successful Derbyshire side full of local players, like the one that won the championship in 1936, all of them born within the county. That will never happen again, because mobility of labour makes playing anywhere you want far easier, as do qualification regulations.
Which brings me neatly onto my final point. Cohen crucially has a European passport, which means he is NOT a Kolpak. The club's press release, doubtless after taking advice from the ECB, makes that clear. One would assume that should leave him clear of a potential cull of Kolpak players post-Brexit, but no one really has any idea on how that will unfold. When Irish players are classed as overseas, but Dutch players are fine to play on European passports, it is all rather muddy.
I read this week that counties may well be allowed two overseas in county cricket, which would enable the better ones to stay here under that heading. Yet given the way that most struggle to find players who are suitably qualified, or available at present, a rethink on qualification criteria may well be needed sometime soon.
Anyway, welcome to Derbyshire, Michael. I hope you enjoy yourself, find a new home in God's Own County and are successful at the friendliest club on the circuit.
For those who want a taster, here he is in action for the Cobras, the left-arm bowler in this clip earning praise from Dane Piedt.
Enjoy!
Postscript - and here's one of him being interviewed
Thank you for posting the YouTube clips, Peakfan. He seems an intelligent and very articulate young man and presumably will benefit from Wayne Madsen's and Leus du Plooy's experience here.
ReplyDeleteThis wont be posted as is a criticism. But seriously another non uk player. Simply grist to the mill of anyone who questions our contribution to the game and production of players to help England. And how can we defend it? We release young quicks who get snapped up by others yet plow the non uk route even more. What defence is there to those who question the need for us and contribution to English cricket. Madsen, Du plooy, Rampaul, Smit, Melton, Cohen, have i missed any?
ReplyDeleteDes
He looks pretty good, doesn't he. Quick bowlers bring an extra level of excitement and he is in good hands in Steve Kirby. If he does as well as Leus then we have got ourselves a good 'un.
ReplyDeleteHe is 21,so it isn't as if we are taking a player away from test cricket, like Yorks have done with Olivier. He could actually go on to play for England, in theory.
ReplyDeleteI think you're rather missing the point about the overseas players. As I understand it, it's not about Cohen per se--although of course it's yet another young South African who is removed from their pool of potential international players. It's about the NUMBER of overseas players Derbys are signing, as pointed out upthread: there have been five in the last two seasons now, including three of the last four seam bowlers that they've signed, at a time when they've released four young England-qualified seamers in roughly the same period.
ReplyDeleteThe Amla signing is not an exact parallel--simply because Surrey don't have many non-England-qualified players apart from their official overseas player. They will also be missing two of their best batsmen to the Test team next year, and they don't have a gigantic amount of batting cover. (Having said that, I think their recent policy of signing any seam bowler that moves has been a disgrace!)
I take your points about not being able to carry players, about budgets (which means that they presumably couldn't sign an end-of-career English player like Footitt), and about the need for larger squads because of the Hundred. However that doesn't affect players like Meaker and Dunn--who are realistically Surrey's 11th and 12th choice seamers now. It doesn't affect young out-of-contract players like Sakande. And it doesn't affect looking into the possibility of red-ball loans for promising young players who are struggling to get into their counties' red-ball teams, like Pennington, Pat Brown, and maybe Helm.
I think you also misunderstand the status of EU players. That status is based on EU employment law--so unless the government incorporates that aspect of EU law into English law if and when Brexit happens (which I suspect is unlikely if it's a Conservative government), their status is essentially the same as Kolpaks. That is, after next season they would currently have to be reregistered as overseas players.
I understand the status fine, Anon (please use a name)
DeleteBut it is frustrating that counties are losing Irish players but can retain those of Dutch origin. It is a puzzle for supporters and not especially clean.
As for signing and releasing.. If we feel a player will not make it, why keep them on?
If we feel another, irrespective of origin is worth a deal and we can justify it, why not?
In that case PF, what are we doing to benefit English Cricket and the prospects of the England teams to justify the ECB handout that keeps us solvent?
DeleteDes
Suggest you look closely at Surrey's overseas players. Apart from Amla, they recently signed a young South African spinner and team-mate of Cohen's, Daniel Moriarty, without any of the negative comments that Derbyshire attracted. Add to him, Morne Morkle and Connor Mckerr, and that makes 4 Kolpak / EU / UK passport signings from South Africa. On top of that, they have Tom and Sam Curran, Jade Dernbach, Stuart Meaker and Jason Roy, all South African and no more English than Wayne Madsen is. Surrey's reputation as a hotbed of English talent is almost entirely based on their batting production line, and it's no coincidence that almost all of those above are bowlers, as too are most of their imports from other counties.
DeleteIt's not particularly a defence of how Derbyshire have managed their bowling resources, but highlights the hypocrisy of some of those who criticised them. One, Don Topley, is most associated with Essex, who have Harmer, Quinn, ten Doeschate, Delport and Snater. Yes, Surrey and Essex both have a defence of producing more England players, but if the sin is blocking the pathways for young English players by signing overseas players with backdoor qualification routes, we are far from the worst offenders but nevertheless the most singled-out.
I'm still unclear PF, why you think that EU and Kolpak players will have different statuses post-Brexit--could you elucidate? It would seem to me to require the UK government to adopt a policy of free movement--which is one of the pro-Brexit parties' biggest red lines. The only way I can see the status being different is if both Britain stays in the EU AND the Cotonou Agreement is not renewed.
DeleteTo me, the thinking behind counting Ireland players as overseas is fairly clear: to stop the county game creaming off all the talent from a new Full Member's nascent professional structure. Of course it is completely inconsistent in terms of EU employment law (not that it even has to be, since the only Ireland county players in 2019 are all citizens of the UK, not Ireland) and wouldn't stand up for a minute in an employment tribunal!
Re your third question: I guess it depends what you see the county game's responsibilities as, if any. If you see the purpose of a county team as just to win things, then I agree that there's no problem with signing anyone of whatever origin. I would argue that it also has a responsibility both to support English cricket's youth systems (that is, if Taylor and Gleadall aren't good enough, find other young players who are) and not to pinch players from other (that is, poorer) countries' domestic systems, thus diminishing their pool of talent. As I said earlier, in the end it's a question of balance: the issue with Cohen isn't Cohen per se, it's the number of overseas signings.
I wonder if in the long run this also risks destroying the international game. The less there is an element of international connection to the side which you represent, the more the international game will represent a franchise competition--in which case why not just turn it into a franchise competition? This seems particularly true where people change countries when they're already adult purely to further their cricket careers--which also disproportionately benefits the richer countries at the expense of the poorer ones. (It's an interesting question how much England supporters would identify with an England team where, say, six or seven members qualified only by residence based on having a Dutch or German parent--it's a step further than Archer or Pietersen say, both of whom have a british parent.)
We may see in a few years how the counties like being on the receiving end of all this when all their Academy products scarper to play in the Ranji Trophy and the IPL rather than the Championship...!
Ian
Bottom line is no one knows, Ian. We don't know the government, whether there will be Brexit, hard or soft, or no Brexit. Until we do, it is a grey area. There's not a journalist, administrator or MP knows either, so it is supposition.
DeleteWith Ireland now a full member of the ICC their players are classed as overseas, which is the bottom line.
Good players will always rise to the top, but as another contributor pointed out, you look at the number of England under-19s who don't make it. Of course, Derbyshire will continue young player development, but it is far easier for such a player to be assimilated into a good side, than a poor one. Look at Barnett, Morris, Adams, as they found their way into an already good batting side.
It is just unfair how it is always Derbyshire, again as pointed out elsewhere. Surrey, Essex, Glamorgan, Hampshire have all gone down the Kolpak route as much or more.
Derbyshire? Madsen came on a European passport and is now English to all intents and purposes. Smit did the same and has played here for years in the leagues. Rampaul was at Surrey before Derbyshire. Why shouldn't they, if labour regulations allow it?
du Plooy and Cohen may end up playing for England, or they may go back to South Africa, like du Plessis, McLaren and others. But supporters will enjoy watching them, appreciate the stronger side we have as a result and revel in no longer being push overs for the big boys.
Who is to say that Cohen might not be good enough to play for England? Madsen would have been. Hughes, Critchley, Hosein etc offer young talent, but Slater a case in point. We rear him then a bigger club takes him away. Ask Leics about producing young talent and what happens.
ReplyDeleteI want to see a winning Derbyshire. Now if that happens with young local players it is fine, but it is also about popularising the game in this area. That is more likely to get an, uptake with a strong side, irrespective of origin, rather than local kids who aren't good enough. We tried that and it failed.
There is a balance and while the long term futures of Smit and Rampaul aren't likely, both Cohen and du Plooy could benefit England.
If we didn't sign them, someone else would and I suspect both will be envied in due course. Du Plooy already picked up for The Hundred...
Yorkshire have just signed a veteran player from a poor second division side, on a four year deal. It isn't only us struggling to produce quality players
ReplyDeleteboth Leus Du Ploy and Michael Cohen look to fulfilling the eligibility criteria they could be playing for England in three or four years. If they prove good enough. Then the ECB would be very grateful to Derbyshire for giving them the chance in county cricket. Like many members who want Derbyshire to do well, I wish them every success in their future careers.
ReplyDeleteI wish James Taylor well, but having watched him several times he has never given me the impression he would make it. I hope that he proves me and a lot of other people wrong.
Over the years very few England Under 19 cricketers have made the grade as first class cricketers. That assertion is not made based just on young Derbyshire players, but on other counties as well.
It is interesting to note that Surrey appear to have nine players who were born outside this country (not including overseas players) or their parents were. Presumably they could have qualified for another country had they so wished. Morkel and Amla did play for South Africa with distinction. Kevin Curran represented Zimbabwe. They just signed the spinner, Moriarty from South Africa to little adverse comment.
I do not see anything wrong in the signing of either Du Ploy or Cohen and think it may well prove a good thing for English cricket and help push standards up.
Denis
Does Cohen have a German passport?
ReplyDelete