England is number 1 cuz they poached the best players from other countries not fair

[Pom_in_SA]

A lot of people in Commonwealth nations have an english born parent/grandparent. I do. It seems silly that in a sport with ten competitive nations all the benefits of this rule are funneling toward one nation

I don't suggest going back as far as Grandparents...but are you really suggesting that a lad with English parentage should not be able to play for England. It is an absolute immediate link which is far stronger than just being born in a particular geographical region.

My boys were both born In South Africa but are passionate England fans (despite living more than half their lives in SA). Should they be punished and have to play for South Africa just because me and their mum had very successful *** in SA!

Similarly Archer declared, despite playing for the WI youth teams, that he was always going to go the England route that was slightly more open to him cos of his English dad? I really cannot see the issue with this one?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

England and New Zealand attract a lot of imports because they're cultured, enjoyable places to live. Hence why Australia generally has 10 or 11 home-grown players in their side.

We need more Brendan Nashes in the Caribbean then

 

[cnerd123]

All well and good but this discussion has veered more towards how the qualification criteria is decided in the first place.

At the moment the ICC requires that you be the national of the country you play in, or that you satisfy a 'residency period' of 3 years. It's also 3 years if you move from one country to another, except if you're U19 or Associate moving to Full Member, if I understand correctly.

The 3 year waiting thing is entirely arbitrary and not really the limiting factor. Most country governments prevent non-nationals from representing the country at a sport anyways. So as it is the main issue for a lot of players isn't necessarily the waiting period, but getting the nationality. I can't speak for England specifically because I haven't looked it up, but I imagine that Virat Kohli couldn't play for England even if he went there and lived for 3 years. He'd have to get British citizenship first.

So ultimately it's not really a question of what the ICC or ECB set as their requirements. What matters are the immigration laws of a country. All these waiting periods are just arbitrary rules put in place by administrators to protect an antiquated view of international cricket. As we've already seen with Archer, they're quite willing to change it when it suits them.

Eventually I think it's just going to come down to requiring players to poses citizenship and nothing else. And naturally some countries will have laxer rules than other. The only issue to deal with then is a player rocking up to play for England one day and South Africa the next, although I expect players contracts will address this.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The mini-America shtick that Australia runs with is hilarious. Although I think it's unintentional. Wouldn't surprise me if more than 7% of Australians thought chocolate milk was from brown cows as well.

Not surprising to find a New Zealander with intimate knowledge of livestock tbh.

You mix the feed with chocolate chips. The grass they feed on in the pasture is water with a composition of 90% water and 10% cocoa powder.

Every one knows that.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I'm West Indian and I support Archer's decision.

Make the moolah and don't trade state secrets with them Jofra

 

[FBU]

I think there feels a difference in players coming to play for a quote-unquote "stronger" cricketing nation than those defecting to "weaker" ones.

All due respect to the various Anglo-Aussies who've taken the Queen's shilling over the years, but none of them were in any serious contention for a baggy green. Those that were or are (Symonds, Renshaw, Pattinson minor, Harris and even Steve Smith) all waited for the Kangaroo to call.

Whereas the likes of Archer and Morgan would unquestionably improve the playing stocks of their respective "home" countries.

I'm not sure one could definitely say Eoin was poached as, at the time, the only test route open to him was England. Young Jofra though was seemingly actively courted to some extent, what with Jordan recommending him to Sussex on the strength of his UK passport. Not to mention the ECB re-writing their qualification rules to ensure he was very conveniently available for the home world cup.

As an England fan I'm chuffed he's ours, but stepping back to look at the wider picture, there has arguably been some parochial self interest to get him into the team. Would a talent of his magnitude really have been prepared to wait another four years for international cricket?

He says he was prepared to wait. West Indies tried to get him back but he wasn't interested.
Also it is his stepfather who is English.

 

[Red]

Tbh Archer and Jordan are the only players who you could feasibly have a point with.

Roy, Stokes, Currans etc, have all played their cricket in England and have grew up here. Archer has an English mother or father as well, so its not like he is completely disconnected from the country either.

Also citing Rashid and Ali as players 'from other countries' comes off at best as ignorant, at worst racist, on your part.

I'm gonna go with just outright racist actually.

here we go...

 

[Howe_zat]

here we go...

The guy literally posted that some people shouldn't be allowed to play for England because of their race.

What else is it. Muppet.

 

[Adders]

I personally think that as long as a player has met all the necessary qualification criteria to represent a country at a sport (or any professional competitive sphere), then that's where the discussion ends. There is no room for sentiment. No questioning their heritage or how strongly they feel for a country.

We live in a different world now. Nationality is fluid, more people than ever before come from mixed heritages and cultural backgrounds, and being an athlete is a profession just like anything else. No one questions if a Doctor in England feels English or if an actor in Hollywood actually learnt how to act in the USA. I understand sport is a different thing and loyalty to a patch of land is always going to be a part of it, but that's increasingly becoming just a small factor in what drives global sport. How many Manchester United fans have even been to Manchester, let alone have any real ties to the region?

As long as the player has done what is required of him to represent a country, then he belongs to that country, fair and square.

Welcome back *****..........spot on post.

 

[Adders]

Ultimately these things are 'questioned' by people who have never had anything but one experience of having one heritage and one culture in one part of one country. Joe Bloggins from Coventry has English parentage as far back as he knows and rarely goes further than the M42, and he can't percieve having another perspective on nationality. So he posts on the internet about how Stokes is a New Zealander because he can read the 'born' line on wikipedia, and that's good enough for him. Simple.

Some people are bound to see national representation differently. International sportsmen, who are overwhemingly more likely to be part of international families who grow up tavelling and with links to a lo more people and places than Joe Bloggins, tend to see nationality differently. Joe Bloggins needs to learn to deal with it.

Joe Bloggins is an ignorant ****..........Don't be like Joe Bloggins.

 

[mr_mister]

International sportsmen are some of the most sheltered people in society

 

[Flem274*]

i agreed with zoraxs post until he mentioned sentiment, because when a sport is played between nations then that matters.

to me, a player should play for the place he calls home. whether it's an adopted home or their home of birth, it doesn't matter. all that matters is that it is home.

anything else is just the soulless logical end point of franchise draft mercenary competitions. the ipl isn't boring because it's t20, it's boring because literally no overseas player cares beyond their wallet and the draft swaps players around all the time to different teams. this is also what i hate about american sport.

home still matters in international sport otherwise shakib al hasan and kane williamson would take the money and go play for some hole like australia, england, hong kong or india.

 

[Daemon]

to me, a player should play for the place he calls home. whether it's an adopted home or their home of birth, it doesn't matter. all that matters is that it is home.

How long do you have to stay in a place before you can call it home?

 

[Flem274*]

How long do you have to stay in a place before you can call it home?

completely up to the eye of the beholder, but for practical cricketing purposes im fine with 4 years between test playing nations to discourage mercenaries.

 

[mr_mister]

i agreed with zoraxs post until he mentioned sentiment, because when a sport is played between nations then that matters.

to me, a player should play for the place he calls home. whether it's an adopted home or their home of birth, it doesn't matter. all that matters is that it is home.

anything else is just the soulless logical end point of franchise draft mercenary competitions. the ipl isn't boring because it's t20, it's boring because literally no overseas player cares beyond their wallet and the draft swaps players around all the time to different teams. this is also what i hate about american sport.

home still matters in international sport otherwise shakib al hasan and kane williamson would take the money and go play for some hole like australia, england, hong kong or india.

Well said.

 

[harsh.ag]

The guy literally posted that some people shouldn't be allowed to play for England because of their race.

What else is it. Muppet.

Haha yeah. But it could just as easily be an assumption based on race, rather than outright "Brown Muslims born in England aren't English".

 

[harsh.ag]

i agreed with zoraxs post until he mentioned sentiment, because when a sport is played between nations then that matters.

to me, a player should play for the place he calls home. whether it's an adopted home or their home of birth, it doesn't matter. all that matters is that it is home.

anything else is just the soulless logical end point of franchise draft mercenary competitions. the ipl isn't boring because it's t20, it's boring because literally no overseas player cares beyond their wallet and the draft swaps players around all the time to different teams. this is also what i hate about american sport.

home still matters in international sport otherwise shakib al hasan and kane williamson would take the money and go play for some hole like australia, england, hong kong or india.

I agree with the sentiment, but human beings are highly capable of rationalizing their sentiments given certain incentives, so the discussion of how and why so many players are willing and able to call England home rather than, say Bangladesh, matters.

 

[cnerd123]

I can see Flem's POV but utterly disagree with it. As time moves on, more and more people are going to have sentimental attachments to multiple countries. You can be born in one place, grow up in a second, all the while hailing from a culture or heritage of a third. Who you choose to represent will then be more or less a professional decision. You will choose whatever gives you the most fulfillment in your career - be it having stronger ties to the country you are playing for, or being able to earn more money and play at a higher level, or some other reason all together.

It's a good argument that we do need to stop a player from playing for Bangladesh one week and Sri Lanka the next, or players rocking up for Associate countries in between Test series. I think this will naturally resolve itself if a player gets centrally contracted to play for one particular country, but maybe the ICC does need some sort of rule to prevent two countries from working out an agreement to share a particularly influential dual-nationality player. But that will probably just be an arbitrary amount of time a player has to wait out before he can represent one country over the other. I don't think it needs to be any more complex than that.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's not really about players meeting the criteria. It's about whether the criteria is right. I think it absolutely isn't. International sport should be about representing the country of your birth or heritage. Ted Dexter's English father was based in Italy through work and Dexter himself was in England from his primary school days, so his heritage is clearly English. Any qualification based purely on residence having moved to another country as an adult is just wrong.
People like Monty Panesar and Moeen Ali are absolutely English. Colour, race or religion has nothing to do with it.


Only my opinion of course. I know all the arguments the other way and those opinions are just as valid. I just don't agree with them.

 

[Flem274*]

I can see Flem's POV but utterly disagree with it. As time moves on, more and more people are going to have sentimental attachments to multiple countries. You can be born in one place, grow up in a second, all the while hailing from a culture or heritage of a third. Who you choose to represent will then be more or less a professional decision. You will choose whatever gives you the most fulfillment in your career - be it having stronger ties to the country you are playing for, or being able to earn more money and play at a higher level, or some other reason all together.

It's a good argument that we do need to stop a player from playing for Bangladesh one week and Sri Lanka the next, or players rocking up for Associate countries in between Test series. I think this will naturally resolve itself if a player gets centrally contracted to play for one particular country, but maybe the ICC does need some sort of rule to prevent two countries from working out an agreement to share a particularly influential dual-nationality player. But that will probably just be an arbitrary amount of time a player has to wait out before he can represent one country over the other. I don't think it needs to be any more complex than that.

hmm nah. ymmv, but despite feeling sentimental towards the places ive lived i know absolutely which nz province holds my allegiance* despite having no desire to live there again any time soon. i cant really imagine a huge number of cricketers feeling attached to half the countries of the world. you ask any kiwi living in london for 10-20 years who they'd represent and it'd be nz and not even close.

*(its not hamilton)