Buchanan's awful plan

[Richard]

Should the ECB also then outlaw players reprisenting more than 1 county? CA outlaw interstate movements?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Should the ECB also then outlaw players reprisenting more than 1 county? CA outlaw interstate movements?

No.

What was your point?

 

[Jono]

If you do that, don't call it international cricket.

I don't necessarily like the term 'nationalism', because it breeds other problems which are all too common in this world, but the fact is international cricket is a different beast to domestic, state, club and whatever other 'boundary' and separations are made.

The 'free market' argument doesn't stand up to the fact that it'll defeat what international cricket is about. Test cricket will pretty much become like the EPL. Its unfortunate domestic cricket isn't as popular as domestic soccer, NFL, baseball, rugby etc. but that's the nature of the sport. Its a limitation because international cricket is so prevalent, and is the central aspect, which it isn't for most other sports. Rugby being the exception, but their domestic structures attract more fans due to the nature of the sport.

 

[Richard]

No.

What was your point?

Why should players not be allowed to change country, but be allowed to change county?

There's no difference.

Movement, because you wish to move and play for someone, is a choice no-one should be stopped from making just because they've previously reprisented someone else at the same "level" of the game.

There's a stigma attached to "but countries are different" when they're not. A country is just a different border to a county or city. And if someone wants to move from one to another, they've every right to.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why should players not be allowed to change country, but be allowed to change county?

There's no difference.

Movement, because you wish to move and play for someone, is a choice no-one should be stopped from making just because they've previously reprisented someone else at the same "level" of the game.

There's a stigma attached to "but countries are different" when they're not. A country is just a different border to a county or city. And if someone wants to move from one to another, they've every right to.

Well, yes there is & it's obvious too. Leaving aside sovereign nations' employment laws, counties/states employ a team to play for them; countries, on the other hand, are able to select from all the players who're qualified to represent them. I know boards now centrally contract players, but a country's board can't just go out and simply employ players from elsewhere to play for them, whereas counties can. Counties, in England anyway, haven’t been representative teams for a good few decades. Even the people’s republic of Yorkshire gave up the ghost by the turn of the 90s.

I, personally, don't have a huge issue with players switching allegiances even once having played for another country, provided there is some disincentive like the qualification period. Given the relative brevity of cricketers' playing lives it effective means only one such change is possible if they aspire to a meaningful career at the highest level.

 

[Richard]

Well, yes there is & it's obvious too. Leaving aside sovereign nations' employment laws, counties/states employ a team to play for them; countries, on the other hand, are able to select from all the players who're qualified to represent them.

I'm not talking about from the POV of the teams; I'm talking about from the POV of the player.

He should have no less right to choose his country as he should to choose his county. Or his club.

 

[Goughy]

The 'free market' argument doesn't stand up to the fact that it'll defeat what international cricket is about. Test cricket will pretty much become like the EPL.

A player should not be forced to only be able to represent the country he was born in. Firstly it raises issues of countless players that are born in one country but raised in another.

Secondly, a player should be able to represent a country if he has decided to make a life there for himself and is committed, just like any immigrant. There would be a whole heap of Employment law red tape if a player was denied selection due to being a naturalised citizen rather than born citizen.

Players moving countries for opportunity is nothing new and is part of making a new life for themselves. Caddick, KP and Twose are but 3 examples.

Now, as Ive said, Im against Cricket boards actively recruiting foreign players but if they qualify of their own valition then they cant be prejudiced against.

 

[Jono]

A player should not be forced to only be able to represent the country he was born in. Firstly it raises issues of countless players that are born in one country but raised in another.

Secondly, a player should be able to represent a country if he has decided to make a life there for himself and is committed, just like any immigrant. There would be a whole heap of Employment law red tape if a player was denied selection due to being a naturalised citizen rather than born citizen.

Players moving countries for opportunity is nothing new and is part of making a new life for themselves. Caddick, KP and Twose are but 3 examples.

Now, as Ive said, Im against Cricket boards actively recruiting foreign players but if they qualify of their own valition then they cant be prejudiced against.

You're arguing something different. I have no problem with a similar situation to Kevin Pietersen.

I have an issue with the Indian board saying, hey Henriques looks a great prospect, let's offer him a bucklet-load of cash and get him to play test cricket for us in a few years time.

Completely different situations, and I find it confusing that posters in this thread are trying to make them fall under the same umbrella. I don't like how money dictates where the good players play in the EPL and other soccer leagues. For the most part, this could occur in international cricket, and most importantly, will severely decrease the motivation of improving fundamental cricketing structures at grassroots level.

Indian cricket should be proud that they were able to unveil, and produce a player such as Anil Kumble for example. Someone you wouldn't normally pick as a cricketer, yet the structures in place allowed him to succeed.

As should Australia with Shane Warne, where their cricketing structures allowed him to fulfill his potential.

 

[Goughy]

You're arguing something different. I have no problem with a similar situation to Kevin Pietersen.

I have an issue with the Indian board saying, hey Henriques looks a great prospect, let's offer him a bucklet-load of cash and get him to play test cricket for us in a few years time.

Completely different situations, and I find it confusing that posters in this thread are trying to make them fall under the same umbrella.

Fair enough. Looks like we agree

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm not talking about from the POV of the teams; I'm talking about from the POV of the player.

He should have no less right to choose his country as he should to choose his county. Or his club.

Nationality doesn't work like that tho. I can't just wake up & decide "**** it, I'll be Bangladeshi today." There's a due process to go through and, whilst test nations represent countries (or groups of countries England & the West Indies' cases) rather than franchises it will continue to be the case.

 

[Goughy]

Nationality doesn't work like that tho. I can't just wake up & decide "**** it, I'll be Bangladeshi today." There's a due process to go through and, whilst test nations represent countries (or groups of countries England & the West Indies' cases) rather than franchises it will continue to be the case.

It would be nice if you could though. Id buy a house in Zim and even do some situps in a effort to play some ODIs

 

[silentstriker]

So you're seriously telling me that an Indian team comprised out of Australians would give you a whole lot of satisfaction?

What would give me the most satisfaction is good competitive cricket. I don't give a crap if its a bunch of Aussies in a uniform that happens to say the word 'India', or 'Bombay Colts' or 'Melbourne Blues'.

I don't care that much about specific cricket- and the more I get into cricket the less I care about one team in particular and more about simply watching exciting, high-quality, and competitive cricket.

 

[Jono]

Why not then go as far as have them be the Coca-Cola Curries vs. Cadbury Bogans?

Both teams may still have incredibly great cricketers, and they may put on a good cricketing match. It'd be meaningless though.

If you let money dictate the game to such a great extent, you're just allowing corporate sponsorship to eventually take-over.

 

[silentstriker]

Why not then go as far as have them be the Coca-Cola Curries vs. Cadbury Bogans?

If it produces good cricket - why does the name matter?

It'd be meaningless though.

About as meaningless as a NFL game which tens of millions of people adore as much as people love cricket. And my friend in India is a die hard Manchester United fan - his devotion and attachment to the club is no less tangible and meaningless than someone else's attachment to the Indian cricket team.

 

[Richard]

Nationality doesn't work like that tho. I can't just wake up & decide "**** it, I'll be Bangladeshi today." There's a due process to go through and, whilst test nations represent countries (or groups of countries England & the West Indies' cases) rather than franchises it will continue to be the case.

I'm aware that there are due processes to go through, and this is quite right - international cricket sans-residence-qualification is a hideous idea.

However, there's no reason someone shouldn't play for one Test-playing team having previously played for another. None at all. Any more than someone shouldn't play for Exeter CC because they've once played for Sanford CC.

My nationality is nothing, AFAIC - I'm a citizen of Earth. I have no more attachment to England or Wales than I do to Morpeth or Exeter. If I wanted to be an American (not that I do) I could become one and this is quite right. Similarly, if I wanted to move to Carlisle tomorrow there would be no process stopping me.

 

[Jono]

If it produces good cricket - why does the name matter?

Because maybe not to you, but most cricket fans, the game is also about emotional attachment. Not just what they see.

If there exists great cricket played at the same time whilst they have an emotional attachment to the countries playing (for eg. 2001 India vs. Aus series) than all the better.

About as meaningless as a NFL game which tens of millions of people adore as much as people love cricket. And my friend in India is a die hard Manchester United fan - his devotion and attachment to the club is no less tangible and meaningless than someone else's attachment to the Indian cricket team.

Firstly, NFL example doesn't work on the grounds its a domestic sport with no (in the mainstream anyway) international competition.

And regarding your Man U example, yes it is less tangible. The likelihood was that he was bought into being a Man U fan through the team's marketing strategies and hence, the funds and capital it has available to accomplish that.

Its all well and good him supporting them. Its a different kettle of fish to an Australian supporting their cricket team in the Ashes, or an Indian supporting their team against Pakistan.

Again, I'm not justifying any discriminatory, fanatical or any other inappropriate behaviour that occurs due to the nature of international sport, and opposing nations going head to head. But there is a different aura that exists between national countries which does not occur with club vs. club.

If test cricket ever turned into something similar to the EPL or Primera Liga, where half a team's supporters are attained through marketing, then I for one would feel quite distant from the sport.

Personally, if I were to support a cricket team which I 'like the look of, like their team colours, like their playing style etc' (i.e. all arbitrary reasons why fans often choose clubs which they have no attachment to) I'd probably choose Pakistan. Always been a big fan of there team ever since I was young.

And yet, for some reaosn I choose not to support them, and support India. Why? I shouldn't necessarily care then, if all I want to support is the team which I enjoy watching most. But there is something, be it nationalism (as I said I don't necessarily liek the word for the behaviour it causes), patriotism, want to be loyal to my background/country of origin/country parents lived in etc.

You remove that from international cricket, and you take away a bit of its history IMO.

Note: I am not suggesting that a person who has no background, is not a citizen or born in a certain country cannot support them. I myself have a Bangladeshi cricket shirt and am a great supporter of that team. I understand why some supporters choose to support an international team ahead of their own nation's. IMO however to allow countries to purchase teams would

 

[silentstriker]

If there exists great cricket played at the same time whilst they have an emotional attachment to the countries playing (for eg. 2001 India vs. Aus series) than all the better.

You can have the same emotional attachment without involving countries, for example the Yankee-Red Sox.

And regarding your Man U example, yes it is less tangible. The likelihood was that he was bought into being a Man U fan through the team's marketing strategies and hence, the funds and capital it has available to accomplish that.

And he was fan of India because of the brain-dead patriotism that was likely drummed into him. Whatever the reasons are for his emotional connection to Man U, they are irrelevant as the resulting attachment is no different to someone who supports a cricket team.

Its all well and good him supporting them. Its a different kettle of fish to an Australian supporting their cricket team in the Ashes, or an Indian supporting their team against Pakistan.

But thats the thing - it's exactly the same.

Personally, if I were to support a cricket team which I 'like the look of, like their team colours, like their playing style etc' (i.e. all arbitrary reasons why fans often choose clubs which they have no attachment to) I'd probably choose Pakistan. Always been a big fan of there team ever since I was young.

And yet, for some reaosn I choose not to support them, and support India. Why? I shouldn't necessarily care then, if all I want to support is the team which I enjoy watching most. But there is something, be it nationalism (as I said I don't necessarily liek the word for the behaviour it causes), patriotism, want to be loyal to my background/country of origin/country parents lived in etc.

So? What's that got to do with anything? I love the way Pittsburgh plays its defense, but I am loyal to Philadelphia as the team that I grew up watching. And my connection to the Indian team is in no way stronger to my attachment to the Philadelphia Eagles.

 

[Jono]

You continually bringing up clubs as comparison, when in those sports there is no real international competition (your baseball and NFL examples) are irrelevant.

I will try and argue this tomorrow.

Just out of curiosity before I go to sleep, do you live in/are you from Pittsburgh?

 

[silentstriker]

You continually bringing up clubs as comparison, when in those sports there is no real international competition (your baseball and NFL examples) are irrelevant.

I will try and argue this tomorrow.

Just out of curiosity before I go to sleep, do you live in/are you from Pittsburgh?

Philadelphia. And just because cricket does not have a club system now, that doesn't mean it can't have one in the future.

 

[jeevan]

There are also some unique regional flavors that develop that a franchise system will homogenize out.

E.g. the west indian pace battery
indian spin quartet
bangladeshi left arm spin factory
yet another right arm fast , allrounder from SA
indian mastery of warne
fabled indian batting lineup falls to Johnson
indian fielding

Dont know what all the ramifications of this are, but would make this forum a duller place.
Right now only playing Australia and the minnows is somewhat predictable. This proposal sounds to me to be akin to using a sledgehammer to drive a nail into some fine furniture.