English Ringers, mate!

[Langeveldt]

No, within reason thats fine. Thats why Im against legislation preventing it. Im against most legislation where common sense should prevail. However, I dont like it when teams regularly rock up to games with a group of very young kids. Its not good for the kids and not good for the game.

I think, in general, that it is a bad idea but not something that should be outlawed but that is more a societal question in the UK than anything cricket related.

Agreed with this.. I've actually seen it spill over, where we have had a couple of kids batting out for our opposition, and we've stuck our opening bowlers back on because they were the only ones with overs left.. A good length ball for an adult is a neck high bouncer for a young kid, you can guess the rest.. Relations between the teams havent really been patched up either.. And why should our openers slow down if there are league points, and money, at stake? There is plenty of friendly cricket for kids to play in if they must play against adults..

From a personal point of view though, I played my first adult league game when I was 9.. And I think it did me massive amounts of good.. Especially when playing age group cricket as I got older..

 

[Neil Pickup]

There actually are a couple of good lines in the Open Age guidelines, explaining the duty of care:
• Not to place a young player in a position that involves an unreasonable risk to that young player, taking account of the circumstances of the match and the relative skills of the player.
• Not to create a situation that places members of the opposing side in a position whereby they cannot play cricket as they would normally do against adult players.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If it affects the quality of cricket the adults can play then I'd agree with Goughy. Kids have junior cricket, if they have the ability to play at a higher level then that's fine (a guy I played under 14's with played A Grade in the afternoon, he was exceptional though - was about 6' at that stage and bowled pretty quick, ended up playing Australian Under 19's), but if not then they shouldn't be there.

The last game I played before I left Australia was the first week of a 2nd Grade game against a 3rd Grade team (forget the reasoning behind it). 3rd Grade usually play on synthetic and it was on turf. Was a bit confused how to bowl and the captain just told us to play normally. At the end of the day one guy from their team had cried after getting out, another was a split second away from copping a ball right between the eyes whilst not wearing a helmet and they didn't come back the next weekend to finish the game...and they were all 17/18 and up.

Am all for young kids with talent getting a go, but if it ruins the game for everyone else because they've been chucked in there and aren't up to the task then they shouldn't be there.

 

[Goughy]

I played top level league cricket (Yorkshire League) in England at 14 against teams packed with local and overseas pros (not that Im saying that this was correct). So there is certainly a point where it is ok. 11 though is clearly too young. Puberty and ability (on a common sense case by case basis) should be a general rule of thumb.

I think part of the problem in the UK is that age group cricket is so weak and kids think they should be playing adult cricket. It isnt the case in SA where age group cricket is very demanding.

 

[Zinzan]

Interesting to see the poll result indicates most English supporters (on CW anyway) are either 'indifferent' or more-than-comfortable with converts playing based on qualification via British residency/citizenship .

At the moment, I think there's about 2-3 South African's in England's set-up.

My question to English posters is....At what point, if any, would it start bothering you? Hypothetically, if there were 5-6 (or even more) overseas born players, do you think your current view would still hold firm?

 

[GIMH]

It would start bothering me when Australia started beating us, it hasn't happened for like 3 years though so I'm not overly worried though

 

[Zinzan]

It would start bothering me when Australia started beating us, it hasn't happened for like 3 years though so I'm not overly worried though

Well thanks for your serious answer to my question

 

[GIMH]

It was a serious answer!

 

[Goughy]

Hypothetically, if there were 5-6 (or even more) overseas born players, do you think your current view would still hold firm?

A serious answer is that we have been there and now is 'less foreign' than before

 

[NasserFan207]

A serious answer is that we have been there and now is 'less foreign' than before

Really? At the same time? I can't remember five or more in one team.

 

[Goughy]

Really? At the same time? I can't remember five or more in one team.

haha, seriously? Im not even going to list all the games from the 80s and 90s

 

[NasserFan207]

Eh, forgot about the SA max exodus I guess.

 

[Langeveldt]

There actually are a couple of good lines in the Open Age guidelines, explaining the duty of care:
• Not to place a young player in a position that involves an unreasonable risk to that young player, taking account of the circumstances of the match and the relative skills of the player.
• Not to create a situation that places members of the opposing side in a position whereby they cannot play cricket as they would normally do against adult players.

Fair

 

[Richard]

Really? At the same time? I can't remember five or more in one team.

As alluded to, in some games in the 1980s and even 1990s there were more players who had to some extent grown-up elsewhere than the current two (three at a stretch if you include Prior).

 

[Neil Pickup]

A serious answer is that we have been there and now is 'less foreign' than before

Yeah, I can't see myself being dissuaded from supporting England by this, given everything we've gone through in the last 20 years... remembering that there are still qualification rules, either by birth or naturalisation, and it's not as if it is an open shop. If someone wants to commit to the Three Lions, they're okay by me.

 

[Goughy]

Eh, forgot about the SA max exodus I guess.

More than just that. The SA/WI/Aus based teams England had in the 80s and 90s had 5 or more foreign born players.

A 30 sec search shows this game with 6 which Im sure isnt unique and Id bet there may be one or 2 with 7.

 

[wpdavid]

More than just that. The SA/WI/Aus based teams England had in the 80s and 90s had 5 or more foreign born players.

A 30 sec search shows this game with 6 which Im sure isnt unique and Id bet there may be one or 2 with 7.

There was a period in the early 1990's when we regularly played 5 or 6 non-born-and-breds: mainly in the aftermath of the Gatting-led tour to SA. fwiw results were a big improvement on what had gone before. Not convinced that it happened in the 1980's though: at that stage, the foreign contingent in one game amounted to Lamb or Smith plus, sometimes, Cowans, Daffy or Small. Of course there were others, but they were very occasional indeed.

As for 7 of them in the side - your best bet is to look at the period from the WI tour in 1990 to the 1993 Ashes. IIRC we became distinctly more home-grown after then.

 

[Goughy]

There was a period in the early 1990's when we regularly played 5 or 6 non-born-and-breds: mainly in the aftermath of the Gatting-led tour to SA. fwiw results were a big improvement on what had gone before. Not convinced that it happened in the 1980's though: at that stage, the foreign contingent in one game amounted to Lamb or Smith plus, sometimes, Cowans, Daffy or Small. Of course there were others, but they were very occasional indeed.

As for 7 of them in the side - your best bet is to look at the period from the WI tour in 1990 to the 1993 Ashes. IIRC we became distinctly more home-grown after then.

Yeah I can find games in the 80s with 4 overseas born.

Here is 7 in the 90s
2nd Test: New Zealand v England at Auckland, Jan 30-Feb 3, 1992 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah I can find games in the 80s with 4 overseas born.

Here is 7 in the 90s
2nd Test: New Zealand v England at Auckland, Jan 30-Feb 3, 1992 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Well found regarding 7 in the side.

I think the thing with the 1980's is that it seemed like more: one because there were lots of them, but most of whom actually played a tiny number of games, and secondly because that was a new phenomenon, especially the guys of WI descent. Obviously we'd had Greig & Dolly before then, but the 1980's certainly marked a change.

A few years ago, I spent a bit of time discussing this online with the guy who'd written the infamous piece in WCM in the mid1990s. It transpired that he wasn't always careful with his facts, so I ended up checking these things carefully. Sounds anal now, and was probably anal then, but given his obnoxious views of wider racial issues I was keen to show him up. Anyway, bottom line was that from 1982 (when Lamb debuted) to 1989 we averaged about 1.5 players born overseas per test. From 1990 to 1992/93 it was much higher - as you say, often 5 or more.

I'm guessing that the number of times in the 1980's when 4 played was very few indeed?

EDIT
Just looked at the 1992 side you posted. I think you're stretching the boundaries a bit by including Reeve & Pringle whose overseas birth due to their dads' employment isn't really what we're talking about. Anyway, doesn't alter the bigger picture.

 

[Goughy]

Well found regarding 7 in the side.

I think the thing with the 1980's is that it seemed like more: one because there were lots of them, but most of whom actually played a tiny number of games, and secondly because that was a new phenomenon, especially the guys of WI descent. Obviously we'd had Greig & Dolly before then, but the 1980's certainly marked a change.

A few years ago, I spent a bit of time discussing this online with the guy who'd written the infamous piece in WCM in the mid1990s. It transpired that he wasn't always careful with his facts, so I ended up checking these things carefully. Sounds anal now, and was probably anal then, but given his obnoxious views of wider racial issues I was keen to show him up. Anyway, bottom line was that from 1982 (when Lamb debuted) to 1989 we averaged about 1.5 players born overseas per test. From 1990 to 1992/93 it was much higher - as you say, often 5 or more.

I'm guessing that the number of times in the 1980's when 4 played was very few indeed?

EDIT
Just looked at the 1992 side you posted. I think you're stretching the boundaries a bit by including Reeve & Pringle whose overseas birth due to their dads' employment isn't really what we're talking about. Anyway, doesn't alter the bigger picture.

Not at all. Reeve played for Hong Kong and Pringles father played for East Africa and Pringle was born there. Certainly foreign born and the point of the topic was foreign born players not just non-Anglos