Saqlain for England?

[whitedazzler]

if he performs well from the legends surrey this season then let him rip. But base it on form not reputation

 

[slowfinger]

But every time he's been called back to Test cricket, he's failed dismally. Hasn't had so much as one good Test since 1997.

Yeah,for once I actually totally agree with you .
But one problem still

Bowling averages Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10
Tests 49 86 14070 6206 208 8/164 10/155 29.83 2.64 67.6 12 13 3
ODIs 169 165 8770 6275 288 5/20 5/20 21.78 4.29 30.4 11 6 0
First-class 180 42254 18342 793 8/65 23.12 2.60 53.2 57 15
List A 322 16002 11198 477 5/20 5/20 23.47 4.19 33.5 16 7 0
Twenty20 7 7 162 201 8 2/22 2/22 25.12 7.44 20.2 0 0 0

That is not what you call that bad is it?






That shows it all.
Nothing more than the problem

 

[Prince EWS]

Where do you draw the line of "representative", incidentally? Some people feel more of an attachment to a club - have been with it for life, have been part of the lifeblood of the club, indeed - than they do a county or country.

I don't really think you're representing anything other than the club itself when you play club cricket, though. While clubs are based on rough areas, there are no true geographical bounds and you don't represent the suburb of Glenhaven for example, especially when there's a team called Upper Hills which has its own ground in Glenhaven as well. Choosing to move clubs would be something tied to only the club, rather than the area itself.

Playing for New South Wales, to me, is about more than representing the New South Wales Speed Blitz Blues - it's about representing the entirety of the state in all its glory and its patriots. Some people, I guess, feel no attachment to their state/county and draw this line at national level, but it's just a personal thing really.

b) there will always be people who want to change their home. I don't feel people should be disallowed from choosing their home and their country\county\state just because they were born somewhere else.

They wouldn't be prevented from choosing their home, though, they'd just be prevented from representing a state/county/country that they have no real ties to and, IMO, have no business representing. There is nothing that intrinsically says that one must play cricket at a representative level wherever one goes. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to represent your state or your country, you'll just have to stay there; it's a sacrifise, yes, but residency is so often based on employment opportunities in the real world anyway. If all the money happens to be in representative cricket, well that's just tough luck from where I sit. It'd be like me demanding than Canada be granted test status so I wasn't denied employment opportunities if I moved there. Madness, clearly.

Obviously, none of this is particularly practical with the way things work currently, especially in regards to policing such a system, but I do indeed squirm as much at the thought of Nathan Hauritz playing for NSW as I do Saqlain playing for England.

 

[Richard]

TBH, I've been looking for a fair while for a good reason why a club should be different to a state\country, and you've found me one. You're always in a state or country, you're not always in a city\town\village.

Guess over here that has some sort of problem with the major\minor county issue, but that just supports the idea of mergers between minor and major counties that I, Matthew Engel and Michael Atherton have all been in favour of for years.

Put it this way - if a system were to be put in place whereby you had to be born in \ qualified-for-in-LT-way a state\territory\country(WI)\county\anything-else-used to represent them I'd not be outraged. Equally, though, I can see why the "you make your home and no-one can stop you from playing for a state\country not yours by birth" matter is in place.

BTW - are you a NSWer? Always thought Baulkham Hills was in Brisbane.

 

[steds]

What did you think about the case of Wessels? Would you have allowed him to play for Australia?

Yes, but I wouldn't have let him play for South Africa after readmission.

Just out of interest, can Panesar bowl a doosra?

Can he hell.

What I feel is completely ludicrous is the "your country is important, while your state\county is not in the slightest". It's both, or it's neither IMO.

It's nothing like that. I have no problem with people living and working wherever they want. I wouldn't have a problem with England fielding a team of 11 players born outside of England. The problem is that whilst representing your county of birth makes the statement "This is where I come from. And I'm proud of it," but you can easily move and say "This is where I live now. And I'm proud of it." Representing your country says "This is my national identity. This is who I am." You can't set up a stall like that, then say "Hey wait. I want a new national identity." It doesn't work like that.

 

[Prince EWS]

BTW - are you a NSWer? Always thought Baulkham Hills was in Brisbane.

Blasphemy!

It's in Sydney. Northwestern Sydney to be more specific.

 

[Richard]

The problem is that whilst representing your county of birth makes the statement "This is where I come from. And I'm proud of it," but you can easily move and say "This is where I live now. And I'm proud of it." Representing your country says "This is my national identity. This is who I am." You can't set up a stall like that, then say "Hey wait. I want a new national identity." It doesn't work like that.

Why not?

What's wrong with changing your allegiances?

Do you have a problem accepting someone for Lancashire who's played for Sussex (for example) BTW?

 

[Smudge]

SC Guillen (the strangest case, who played for West Indies and New Zealand for a reason I cannot find)

Simpson "Sammy" Guillen, according to his Cricinfo profile, played five tests for the Windies in Aussie in 1951-52 then decided to move to NZ. I've heard the reason why in the past, but I can't recall - possibly work-related? Pretty sure he's enjoying elderly life in Hamilton.

 

[JerseyGuy]

He is history now. May be still good enough for one days but need to prove his hunger and fitness at highest level.

 

[Richard]

If there's one form of the game he now seems less capable at than ever, it's the one-day one.

FFS - we have finally, for the first time since Robert Croft, picked (indeed, had available, but picked in addition to having him available) a spinner who actually looks like he might have the tools to do well in ODIs. And STILL half the CW population seems to be suggesting Saqlain play ahead of him?

 

[Unattainableguy]

Definitely Saqlain

 

[Richard]

Graeme Swann, between 2003 and 2007, has played 75 games of one-day domestic cricket (including a fair few stupid 40-over games), earned an economy-rate of 4.14, and an average of 25.70.

He's then got a ODI debut and taken figures of 4-an-over at 25.71 in his first 5 games.

WTF is anyone really thinking of dropping him now?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Nope, a wrong assumption not for the first time.

You don't understand my way of thinking on country, because you have a different one.

I fully understand what you're thinking - it's just bollox. I'm glad to see that it received nitto support in the limited discussion that followed after I went out. I can just envisage Richard in 1940 saying "Come on in and take over Adolf, it's only a geographical step up."

 

[Neil Pickup]

Following on from the calls for Saqlain, I suggest we get Colin Croft to play Test cricket too. He, after all, is resident in the UK and afaik has citizenship, and what a wonderful set of averages he has - therefore he must be the best selection.

Saqlain 2008 has shown virtually no sign of being the same bowler who got so many International wickets. Until he does with Surrey then Swann is unquestioned #1 in the ODI team. End of - and mercifully the selectors will see it this way.

 

[Richard]

I fully understand what you're thinking - it's just bollox.

I'm glad to see that it received nitto support in the limited discussion that followed after I went out.

It hasn't, though, Rob Cribb for one said pretty much the same thing.

I can just envisage Richard in 1940 saying "Come on in and take over Adolf, it's only a geographical step up."

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It hasn't, though, Rob Cribb for one said pretty much the same thing.

Who's Rob Cribb? It must be a message in invisable morse code.

 

[Richard]

Nope.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Nope.

Where in that post does he agree with you that anyone should be able to flit around and play for any Country of their choice?

 

[Richard]

He agrees that if you shouldn't be able to flit around and play for the country of your choice, you shouldn't be able to do the same for states\counties\etc.

If it's one, it's both; if it's not one, it's neither. It's ridiculous to treat countries as different to counties\states. If you completely block movement between places, you do it at all levels where "representative" honours are awarded.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He agrees that if you shouldn't be able to flit around and play for the country of your choice, you shouldn't be able to do the same for states\counties\etc.

If it's one, it's both; if it's not one, it's neither. It's ridiculous to treat countries as different to counties\states. If you completely block movement between places, you do it at all levels where "representative" honours are awarded.

If you really can't see any difference between Country and domestic boundaries then there's not much else to say, if he really does believe that I hope you'll be very happy together.