Athlai
Not Terrible
Taylor with a great one too 57 / 119* / 110 / 42 / 47'
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* New Zealand in England 2015
- Thread starter JediNudist
- Start date
I was writing the comments but didn't post them right away.
15 overs of Hales and Roy at the wicket and England could get way in front with the run rate and NZ will be playing catch up the rest of the innings. Batting second needing 284 to win would have been quite daunting a couple of years ago but now it's almost an advantage chasing, as under six an over is no problem. It's the wickets NZ need.
Howe_zat
Audio File
I thought Taylor's innings was pretty disappointing today. Took his time to bed in and got out at the worst possible time.
Disappointing for him, I mean.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
Thanks for that Richie. Now over to Greigy for the halftime pitch report.
Yeah, but if Franklin represents NZ today, he's no longer considered an 'EU Passport Holder'. He's playing on his NZ passport and hence is no longer Irish (and, under ECB rules, ceases to meet the criteria to call himself an EU national).
I don't really see why he can't switch back on either side, and I certainly see why you think there's a restraint of trade case in there, but the current interpretation of regulations does not allow you to play as a dual-national (Cribb noted Sean Ervine tried to do it, and the ICC stopped him at one point -- he couldn't be a local for Hampshire and an international rep for Zimbabwe simultaneously).
Stupid rule? Arguably, yeah. Likely to be ruled illegal if challenged? Entirely possible. But it certainly is the prevailing interpretation.
As for restricting his right to work -- he's still 'working' for Middlesex I suppose. Playing or not, he's under full-time contract to them and is being paid by them, presumably with a no-release clause in there wrt international duty.
Would it all fall apart if challenged in court? Maybe, yeah. But that's a ****load of effort to go to in order to get an average batting all-rounder to play a single bilateral ODI as a bowler.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
What the ECB deem to be a national is irrelevant. Its the EU. He has an EU passport. He is there on his EU passport. Not his NZ passport. He may not even have a current NZ passport. His right to work there stems from the EU passport and the EU government, not from any ECB criteria. He does not lose his Irish passport by playing for NZ. The issue is whether the ICC forces the ECB and its counties to mandatorily release players or whether the ECB acts in a unlawfully discriminatory manner in only forcing the release of EU states like English and Irish players for internationals, but not foreign teams like NZ or West Indies.
Yeah Kolpak is Associate countries. Ireland is fully fledged EU. So its Bosman. EU passport holders can work anywhere in the EU.
With the money paid to the counties by the ECB, and the money paid to ECB by the ICC, I find it impossible to think that there is not a restriction there that the counties must release players for international duty. Be it England, Ireland, West Indies or New Zealand. The county could throw a tantrum and not resign a player, but he is eligible for NZ at any time and can then go back to playing county cricket. That is what got my wick up. The issue is whether the county has a tantrum and the terms of his contract not international eligibility and then the right to resume work after a representative selection.
You're saying that the county signed him on the basis he would not respond to an international call up. We do not have the terms of the contract. We do know that the ECB forces the counties to release English players and you're saying it does not force the county players from say NZ or West Indies, which does appear to be clear discrimination. Is it legal discrimination? You're stating that the call up could only be for the passport they enter the country on, EU nation, United Kingdom (England) or Ireland. That is possible, but I think could be challenged on discrimination grounds, which may or may not succeed. There is arguments both ways; the first that there is no discrimination from the county employer and ECB, it is just the terms of their contract, or alternatively that the ECB discrimination of mandatory release for England and Ireland internationals is for the benefit of EU states and valid as against the player not being allowed to play for his national team outside those EU states, and therefore not entitled to play international cricket while under contract to a county forbidding it. But that is providing that the ICC does not restrict that already. I suspect that ICC would restrict that already with its agreement to the ECB that counties must mandatorily release all international representative players that are members of the ICC but I do not know that for a fact. If so, that would put a county throwing a tantrum in breach of the ECB under its ICC obligations.This would mean that the passport is completely irrelevant. Just a straight mandatory release for an international player for an ICC member country regardless of being an EU passport player or overseas pro.
Its like when the ECB tried to say Kolpaks must not have played for their international team for a year to be eligible Kolpak players, that was irrelevant and unenforcable. If you have the right to work as of right in a country, you have that right from the government, or in this case, the EU government, not from meeting ECB requirements.
Found this: could be superseded but it confirms what I suspected although specifically for associate members in ICC tournaments:
ICC mandatory release for international eligible players in county cricket:
http://www.dawn.com/news/313176/counties-asked-to-release-players-for-t20-qualifiers
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/apr/10/icc-challenge-matches-associate-members-test-chance-cricket
Last edited:
LegionOfBrad
International Debutant
Interesting tactical stuff they've done with Baz and Knight.
I had that Test Match game when i was a kid. It was crap. And couldn't they have found an iron?
I had that Test Match game when i was a kid. It was crap. And couldn't they have found an iron?
WalkingWicket
State 12th Man
I reckon a shorter game (less than 30 overs) will favour England - I think England have a more potent immediate batting line-up, and if the match is short enough England won't be able to collapse.
Howe_zat
Audio File
I dunno about 'unable to collapse' but agree that this batting order looks more suited to T20 than 50 over.
wet ball/outfield generally hinders the bowlers too
Last edited:
AndyZaltzHair
Hall of Fame Member
we should all donate captaingrumpy an avatar for his really really i mean really long posts
Howe_zat
Audio File
90 minutes from now according to the Beeb. Must be playing by 5:50pm (4:50am NZ) to get a game in
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
I'm giving you pearls.
Last edited: