Man of the tournament?

[OverratedSanity]

For me it's not about stay where yer from or anything like that I just think this could set a bad precedent of more potential ATGs flocking to 2 or 3 nations

Cricket doesn't necessarily need a strong west indies but it does need plenty of competitive teams. I just want the game to get bigger and bigger

I can definitely see the bcci trying to smuggle in an afghan pace sensation if they find him promising.

 

[Tom Flint]

Or it's because we conquered the world so naturally have English descendents spread all over the world

 

[GIMH]

Root should be MOTS, because he’s my favourite player

 

[mr_mister]

Or it's because we conquered the world so naturally have English descendents spread all over the world

Lol and it's given you this annoying trump card to pull whenever someone considers this jofra debacle to be an example of(with all due respect) blatant poaching of talent

 

[Shri]

mots

root if eng win

kanos if nz win

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah I guess that's true I'm just peeved at the whole Jofra thing. I'd rather cricket resemble the NRL (with salary caps) rather than the EPL(only a fraction of the teams are a chance at winning)

Not advocating anything resembling a salary limit but west indies cricket really could have used a potential superstar bowler of Jofra's calibre.

this reminds me of an idea I once read, which suggested that the match fees and contracts issued to players would be centralized by the ICC, along with a pension plan, meaning that once a player is playing international cricket, it doesn't matter if he plays for India, West Indies or England. The amount he takes back home after each game, and the benefits he gets, will be the same.

Never really thought it through, but it might be worth consideration. I think there will still be advantages to playing for a 'bigger' country though, due to better opportunities for high paying sponsorship, and potentially earning more playing domestic cricket.

The IPL is a good thing in this way - if you can earn a good living playing the IPL 2 months each year, then maybe you don't need to give up on your country. You can continue to represent your home and still make a decent living.

 

[TheJediBrah]

this reminds me of an idea I once read, which suggested that the match fees and contracts issued to players would be centralized by the ICC, along with a pension plan, meaning that once a player is playing international cricket, it doesn't matter if he plays for India, West Indies or England. The amount he takes back home after each game, and the benefits he gets, will be the same.

That's terrible. That's basically communism. You get what you earn. If an Indian cricket team attract more money through sponsorship, ticket sales, tv ratings, then they deserve that money.

Reminding me of the god awful calls for the USA women's soccer team to get "equal pay" to the men because they won a World Cup.

 

[stephen]

this reminds me of an idea I once read, which suggested that the match fees and contracts issued to players would be centralized by the ICC, along with a pension plan, meaning that once a player is playing international cricket, it doesn't matter if he plays for India, West Indies or England. The amount he takes back home after each game, and the benefits he gets, will be the same.

Never really thought it through, but it might be worth consideration. I think there will still be advantages to playing for a 'bigger' country though, due to better opportunities for high paying sponsorship, and potentially earning more playing domestic cricket.

The IPL is a good thing in this way - if you can earn a good living playing the IPL 2 months each year, then maybe you don't need to give up on your country. You can continue to represent your home and still make a decent living.

So then you have English cricketers living in relative destitution while Bangladeshi cricketers living like kings. Cost of living differences are very real things.

 

[Adders]

Mister. You wouldn't give a crap if Archer migrated to England to go work in a bank. Your issue is that he's a talented sportsman and now plays for Eng. There really isn't much of a difference.

England is a multicultural nation and it is right that our cricket team reflects this.

 

[harsh.ag]

Mister. You wouldn't give a crap if Archer migrated to England to go work in a bank. Your issue is that he's a talented sportsman and now plays for Eng. There really isn't much of a difference.

England is a multicultural nation and it is right that our cricket team reflects this.

India is what I would call a multicultural nation. England is a multinational nation. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[mr_mister]

Mister. You wouldn't give a crap if Archer migrated to England to go work in a bank. Your issue is that he's a talented sportsman and now plays for Eng. There really isn't much of a difference.

England is a multicultural nation and it is right that our cricket team reflects this.

I wouldn't give a crap if he lived in England, played county and yet still played international cricket for the West Indies

Like Lionel Messi or Cahill.

If the next Lara moved from T&T to England at 18 and was playing in the ashes by 24 would you still say what's the big deal? Would any kind of measure or limit eventually need to be imposed?

 

[Prince EWS]

Mister. You wouldn't give a crap if Archer migrated to England to go work in a bank.

He probably would if he showed up at some sort of competitive banking World Cup for England though. I literally believe in open borders so I have no issue with Archer taking a job in England as a cricketer or anything else, but in terms of him actually playing for England then yeah I've got an issue with it. Not because immigrants can't be English or any of that nonsense, but because I think it kind of defeats the purpose of actually having international teams in the first place if you can represent in cricket where you not only just moved to it but moved to it for cricket. What's the point of following Zimbabwe if the next time the incredible happens a small country with poor infrastructure produces an Andy Flower or a Heath Streak, he's almost certainly just going to move when he's 16 and end up playing for someone else for financial reasons? And if there's no point following such a team, is there a point in having it? And does this not end at ultimately only having the big four?

If we're going to take that attitude we might as well not bother with national teams and just give IPL and BBL teams Test status. We obviously do to some extent care about national teams and eligibility though, and hence there must be eligibility rules. Given this, it's perfectly fair to argue that one thinks the eligibility rules are too lax, especially if players are moving for cricketing reasons in the first place and still turning up for adopted teams -- the one thing eligibility rules above all else is designed to prevent. International cricket is far less interesting when you can more or less just recruit players IMO.

This idea that countries "deserve" good cricketers for being good places to live really rubs me the wrong way too. The idea that in order to have a good national cricket side you can't just foster the growth of cricket as a cricket board and manage your players well but also somehow have to make the country you live in one of the best in the world to stop your players leaving and just playing for someone else is really depressing to me, and again as I said if we're going to do that we might as well give franchises Test status.

 

[Howe_zat]

All fair points but it really isn't as bad as all that. Archer has been eligible for England's rugby and football teams since he was a foetus.

The only reason we are even having this discussion is because someone decided to throw in Archer with Stokes, Morgan and Roy; and pretending they have the same situation in their lives because of what the 'born' line says on Cricinfo is dumb as hell.

 

[GIMH]

All fair points but it really isn't as bad as all that. Archer has been eligible for England's rugby and football teams since he was a foetus.

The only reason we are even having this discussion is because someone decided to throw in Archer with Stokes, Morgan and Roy; and pretending they have the same situation in their lives because of what the 'born' line says on Cricinfo is dumb as hell.

Yeah agree word for word.

I presume Archer didn’t grow up dreaming of playing for England, but kids with a parent of a certain nationality certainly can associate more with that than where they were born and grew up. It’s a fairly complex issue.

 

[Adders]

I don't get it. So for a variety of reasons I chose to migrate to Australia when I was in my early 20s........I fit the immigration criteria and was granted permanent residency. Should it have made a difference if I was a talented cricketer instead of a **** kicker?

Its not like the ECB roams the world and gets first dibs at any talent.......these players do actually have to have a connection to the UK and meet the migration criteria.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah agree word for word.

I presume Archer didn’t grow up dreaming of playing for England, but kids with a parent of a certain nationality certainly can associate more with that than where they were born and grew up. It’s a fairly complex issue.

Now I've got this image of ICC digging up and analysing his kindergarten answers for the 'what do you want to be when you grow up' question to settle the matter

 

[cnerd123]

I get PEWS' fears, but his premise is that the cricket boards have complete jurisdiction over who gets to represent the country. But that's not true. The national government has a lot of say over that. Becoming qualified to represent India at a sport is significantly harder than becoming qualified to represent England, and that's a government issue and not a BCCI/ECB issue. The ICC criteria (live and play in a country for 4 years) is not the only requirement a cricket board has to meet.

I think that if a country has such an open-doors immigration policy, they deserve to benefit from it. That's a feature of the nation they are trying to build. They want people from around the world to choose to move there to seek a better life. This will have effects at every level of their society, and their national sports teams should reflect that. But if a country has tighter immigration laws, then they're not going to poach players from around the world, because that's not the way the people who run the country envision it operating.

 

[add_sauce]

Honestly, I think I should be Man Of The Tournament. I've been staying up from 7:30pm until 3:30-4:00am AEST each day for these games. Where's my trophy?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Except Qatar.

 

[Groundking]

For me it's not about stay where yer from or anything like that I just think this could set a bad precedent of more potential ATGs flocking to 2 or 3 nations

Cricket doesn't necessarily need a strong west indies but it does need plenty of competitive teams. I just want the game to get bigger and bigger

We need the ICC to get their **** together first for this to happen. I agree tho.

Yeah Tommy Curran must feel a little bittersweet atm. I watched him and Archer extensively during the BBL and came to the conclusion there's not a lot separating them as quality bowlers, though they obviously offer different things

Before the WC I would have had TC in the team ahead of Wood, but tbf to Wood he's done pretty well.