Player eligibility

[Richard]

I've been thinking about this quite a lot since the Darren Pattinson case. In essence, if a player has not played for a full team or under-19 team (not sure if A-teams qualify as there's nothing official about them to my knowledge) that means they can be available for two teams at the same time, possibly more.

A for instance - if it'd been Australia, not South Africa, touring last summer and they'd been suffering an injury crisis at the time of the Headingley Test and elected to call on Pattinson's services, he'd have had the choice of playing for England by virtue of birth and Australia by residence.

For a while, I've been thinking this - birth qualification is absolute bull****. It doesn't matter a jot for mine where you were born. If you've lived somewhere since you were 6 years old (as Pattinson did in Australia there or thereabouts, and as Andrew Strauss coincidentally enough did in reverse with South Africa and the UK) you've no right playing for anyone other than them.

I've also in recent times become less easy about this nation-hopping. I'm all for making your home where you want it, I've done (and been forced into doing) that several times myself in my relatively short life. But sporting teams are about more than that - you should basically be a citizen of the nation. I think if I had my way you'd only be able to play for a country if you had a residence qualification of 10, maybe even 15, years. That'd mean if you moved over to the UK at the age of 18 or 20, you'd not be able to represent England. No birth; no parentage or heritage. Residence should be the only way to qualify for a team for mine, and not just because you fancied it, but because you've been brought-up there.

FTR, I also feel the same way about counties, states and the like. I've never liked players moving between counties. If you can't get a place in your home county, that's tough tomallies. You've no more right to go elsewhere than players have to go elsewhere if they can't get in their country's XI a la Kevin Pietersen.

 

[zaremba]

I've been thinking about this quite a lot since the Darren Pattinson case. In essence, if a player has not played for a full team or under-19 team (not sure if A-teams qualify as there's nothing official about them to my knowledge) that means they can be available for two teams at the same time, possibly more.

A for instance - if it'd been Australia, not South Africa, touring last summer and they'd been suffering an injury crisis at the time of the Headingley Test and elected to call on Pattinson's services, he'd have had the choice of playing for England by virtue of birth and Australia by residence.

For a while, I've been thinking this - birth qualification is absolute bull****. It doesn't matter a jot for mine where you were born. If you've lived somewhere since you were 6 years old (as Pattinson did in Australia there or thereabouts, and as Andrew Strauss coincidentally enough did in reverse with South Africa and the UK) you've no right playing for anyone other than them.

I've also in recent times become less easy about this nation-hopping. I'm all for making your home where you want it, I've done (and been forced into doing) that several times myself in my relatively short life. But sporting teams are about more than that - you should basically be a citizen of the nation. I think if I had my way you'd only be able to play for a country if you had a residence qualification of 10, maybe even 15, years. That'd mean if you moved over to the UK at the age of 18 or 20, you'd not be able to represent England. No birth; no parentage or heritage. Residence should be the only way to qualify for a team for mine, and not just because you fancied it, but because you've been brought-up there.

FTR, I also feel the same way about counties, states and the like. I've never liked players moving between counties. If you can't get a place in your home county, that's tough tomallies. You've no more right to go elsewhere than players have to go elsewhere if they can't get in their country's XI a la Kevin Pietersen.

So your clean-and-simple way of picking a country amounts to:
1. Citizenship
2. Residence
3. Being brought up in that country

Which is to say, three completely different tests.

Getting real for a moment, it seems to me that there are some people who will have equal claims to play for 2 or even more nations. Some people move from country to country to country throughout their lives and aren't "brought up" in any one country. Others may have equally strong links with 2 countries (to take an example at random: parents English; born in England; raised in Australia till age 7; in England till age 13; in Australia again till age 20). Why should they not have their choice of which country to play for?

 

[Uppercut]

Aye, well that's a bit strict and i'm not for enforcing which county or country someone wants to play for. I could have moved to Chad aged eight and lived there until i was twenty-eight and it would not make me one iota less Northern ****ing Irish.

 

[stumpski]

FTR, I also feel the same way about counties, states and the like. I've never liked players moving between counties. If you can't get a place in your home county, that's tough tomallies. You've no more right to go elsewhere than players have to go elsewhere if they can't get in their country's XI a la Kevin Pietersen.

On that basis, Ian Botham would never have been able to play first-class cricket.

 

[GIMH]

Born in the same county as me though, well sort of. It was Cheshire then and it's Merseyside now but y'know! LOL

Got a lot of thoughts on this issue. Might post them soon.

 

[zaremba]

On that basis, Ian Botham would never have been able to play first-class cricket.

Nor Basil D'Oliveira Test cricket. Nor Ranji. Nor (before 1929) Grimmett.

 

[Goughy]

Fair to say I dont agree with a word if the opening post whether regarding International or County cricket.

There is the situation where a player (living a vagrant lifestyle like me and my kids do) may never be able to represent a country if the rules in the opening post are followed.

 

[Richard]

Nor Basil D'Oliveira Test cricket. Nor Ranji. Nor (before 1929) Grimmett.

Indeed. There'd be imperfections, many of them - and I'm not for one second suggesting it'd not be a travesty if D'Oliveira, Pietersen, Lamb or any number of others had been lost to English cricket.

However, the system we currently have seems to me to be flawed to an even greater degree.

 

[Uppercut]

Nor Basil D'Oliveira Test cricket. Nor Ranji. Nor (before 1929) Grimmett.

Basil D'Oliveira was someone who came to mind when the topic first came up. Generally, the idea of someone who has never been to England in his life and has no relation to the country moving there, playing county cricket for a few years then playing for England isn't what you want. But in those exceptional circumstances it worked out for the greater good. I don't think his experience should be taken into account, really.

 

[Richard]

On that basis, Ian Botham would never have been able to play first-class cricket.

If you were born in a minor county, perhaps you could make a pick of your First-Class county and that'd then become your "one" county.

 

[GIMH]

Nah if someone awesome like that emerges then make that county first-class IMO, could build a Test ground in Birkenhead

 

[Richard]

Getting real for a moment, it seems to me that there are some people who will have equal claims to play for 2 or even more nations. Some people move from country to country to country throughout their lives and aren't "brought up" in any one country. Others may have equally strong links with 2 countries (to take an example at random: parents English; born in England; raised in Australia till age 7; in England till age 13; in Australia again till age 20). Why should they not have their choice of which country to play for?

There is the situation where a player (living a vagrant lifestyle like me and my kids do) may never be able to represent a country if the rules in the opening post are followed.

Regarding this - I'm not for a second suggesting it's not a grey area. Indeed some people cannot have a hard-and-fast rule applied to them.

You've got two choices - either outlaw "vagrant" types (doesn't seem terribly fair, no - but that's not the idea) or give them the choice early-ish in their careers once their outstanding ability is obvious and make them stick with it. Your (Kev's) kids, as you've pointed-out, could perfectly easily qualify for at least 3 different countries by the current or any rules, should they all be cricket-playing teams.

 

[Richard]

Aye, well that's a bit strict and i'm not for enforcing which county or country someone wants to play for. I could have moved to Chad aged eight and lived there until i was twenty-eight and it would not make me one iota less Northern ****ing Irish.

Not if you felt Northern Irish, no, it wouldn't. The point would be though that if you wanted to represent Northern Ireland, you'd have to move back there before doing so. If you're 28 (and a good deal younger than that) you've got the choice over where you live.

However, having not done it you don't really know whether you'd actually feel this way. It's perfectly possible that you, or should we say someone in your situation, might well feel far more allegiance to Chad than NI if they followed that path. Some feel stronger allegiance over their heritage and early years; some feel stronger allegiance over their raising.

 

[GIMH]

My opinion is that you should be eligible through birth, it's a fundamental principle of pretty much any international sport. You should also qualify through parentage, ie I don't think Pietersen should have had to qualify, and it's why I have no issue with him being our superstar, he is half-English.

Qualification is a tricky one. Someone like Pothas, had he played for England, I'd have been a little uncomfortable, because his only affinity with the country seems to be that he has been playing county cricket for a few years. I'm not sure though. Because you have the likes of Ambrose who has been here a fair while, so you can't really resent his playing for us (though wasn't he born here, need to check that).

And then of course there's Strauss, who was born in SA, lived in Aus for a bit, but bloody listen to him, that's the sort of English accent you hear in Hollywood films. Think he has English parentage as well though.

In all reality, despite being uncomfortable with qualification, it is fair enough really as long as they have become a citizen of the country.

However, once you've played a T20i, ODI or Test for a country, then that should be that IMO, and if you don't want to play for them anymore then you don't play international cricket anymore.

 

[Uppercut]

If you were born in a minor county, perhaps you could make a pick of your First-Class county and that'd then become your "one" county.

Your abstract principle isn't exactly practical, what if the management at one county makes staying there untenable? Should that person then be forced to give up first-class cricket (and probably find a new job) or stay in their role with a county, even if it means being subject to horrific abuse from the rest of the team?

 

[zaremba]

I really think it's a non-problem though, Richard.

Yes, it's relatively easy to choose a team to play for. It's another thing to get them to select you. Moreover once you've chosen that team, you're more or less stuck with it. Relatively few players have ever played for 2 countries and none that I can think of in the last 15 years.

Saqlain, for instance, is England-qualified but no-one thinks for a minute he'd play for England, even though we're crying out for a spinner of his class.

 

[Uppercut]

Not if you felt Northern Irish, no, it wouldn't. The point would be though that if you wanted to represent Northern Ireland, you'd have to move back there before doing so. If you're 28 (and a good deal younger than that) you've got the choice over where you live.

However, having not done it you don't really know whether you'd actually feel this way. It's perfectly possible that you, or should we say someone in your situation, might well feel far more allegiance to Chad than NI if they followed that path. Some feel stronger allegiance over their heritage and early years; some feel stronger allegiance over their raising.

Maybe I would feel more allegiance to Chad (Chaddish? Chaddian? I should have picked a less awkward country...). The only person who could tell you what nationality i truly was would be me. Therefore it would be reasonable for me to expect to be able to say which country I'd like to play for.

Relatively, by your reckoning Andrew Symonds would be playing for England. They asked him to play for them early in his career, and he replied: "Nah thanks, mate. I'm an Aussie, fair dinkum." (Whatever that means).

 

[Richard]

Your abstract principle isn't exactly practical, what if the management at one county makes staying there untenable? Should that person then be forced to give up first-class cricket (and probably find a new job) or stay in their role with a county, even if it means being subject to horrific abuse from the rest of the team?

The fact that counties are employers, rather than just sporting teams, does indeed make it even more difficult to defend that position. Of course staying at a county sometimes becomes untenable for personal reasons.

 

[GIMH]

I thought he said "I'm a fair dinkum Aussie"

 

[Uppercut]

I thought he said "I'm a fair dinkum Aussie"

Potayto Potatto