How long will it be before there is a full-blown transfer system in English county cricket

Ralph Dellor07-Dec-2001
JamesOrmond
Photo Dave Munden
How long will it be before there is a full-blown transfer system in English county cricket? The answer to that question might be that there is one already in place; it is just that no money changes hands between counties.The topic has returned as a current issue with the news that James Ormond, who opened the bowling for England in the Test that has just finished in India, has signed a three-year contract with Surrey. The 24 year-old had been with Leicestershire since he was 17, and has been building up an impressive track record.Ormond played for England Under-19s and England A before making his full Test debut at The Oval last summer against Australia. He made his county debut for Leicestershire in 1995, since when he took 225 wickets at an average of 25.67 in first-class cricket and 101 wickets at 22.57 in one-day cricket.As is all too common in the modern game, however, a small county club – or a county club perceived to be small – does not have the allure or financial clout of a large, metropolitan county that has a Test match ground as its headquarters. It says much for Leicestershire that despite this handicap they won the championship in 1996 and 1998 and reached the final of the C & G Trophy last season.Leicestershire will not be amused to see photographs of Ormond kitted out in his new Surrey garb holding up a shirt with “Ormond 13” emblazoned upon it, just as if he was a footballer signing for, say, Manchester United. In cricketing terms, that is a fair analogy.Surrey now have 15 players with international experience on their books. That might appear excessive, but with such playing strength comes obligations to honour Test calls, and they will argue that they need a large pool of proven talent to withstand absences on international duty and injury. Sir Alex Ferguson frequently sings from the same hymn sheet.It could have been Fergie, but was in fact the Surrey chief executive Paul Sheldon, who said: “This is a tremendous signing for the club and will give us the strength in depth to challenge for all four major competitions next season.” Or it could have been Wenger, O’Leary or Houllier.The player himself is quoted as saying: “I am extremely excited about signing for such an ambitious club. To be playing in a side with so many talented and experienced players I hope that I can improve my game as well as help Surrey win more silverware in the future.” It could have been Fowler….ad nauseam.Nobody can attach any blame for this to Surrey or Ormond. The club’s purpose is to be as successful as possible. It is an admirable objective and to achieve it there is a need to have the strongest possible playing staff.Certainly no blame should be apportioned to Ormond. A promising cricketer with abundant talent and a very friendly, open personality, he has every right to run his career as he sees will be most beneficial for him.While feeling sympathy for Leicestershire at losing a fine prospect that they had nurtured so carefully over the years, and while feeling certain misgivings that it is not an altogether desirable trend in the game, there is no avoiding the facts.The cosy, amateurish way of English cricket in the 20th century has gone for good. It is now a fully professional sporting business. The time will come when there will be one group of counties producing players and another buying them in. Some will not survive because they will not have the financial muscle, which is why there is such jockeying for position now.The main danger is that the great sympathy that the English public has for cricket might well be dissipated. Unless there is something tangible to replace the old-fashioned charm of cricket, the appeal might just prove to be an illusion.