Saqlain for England?

[wpdavid]

If you have a passport you should be able to play. No questions asked.

Wessels did it before, and I don't think anyone thought it was making a mockery of the sport then, and it wouldn't now.

I didn't say that it makes a mockery of cricket as such - only that it makes a mockery of international competition if players can switch their countries of allegiance. As I said to Richard, Wessels hadn't played for SA before representing Aus, so that was a different scenario anyway.

 

[shortpitched713]

I didn't say that it makes a mockery of cricket as such - only that it makes a mockery of international competition if players can switch their countries of allegiance. As I said to Richard, Wessels hadn't played for SA before representing Aus, so that was a different scenario anyway.

Anyway, its not like getting a passport from another country is all that easy anyway. You have to live in the country you represent, usually for a considerable amount of time. And almost always it involves revoking citizenship of your previous country and thus any chances of getting selected there.

 

[Engle]

England cannot be seen as selecting another country's leftovers...that would serve as a serious psychological blow to the team, some of whom would not be so unaware as to have this fact flying by them

 

[Dan]

You should play your top four bowlers, if Saqlain is one of the best 4 bowlers, the is no technical reason not to pick him, although there is the ethical dilemma you are discussing.

On statistics, Saqlain is the stronger International bowler, with him averaging 29 in tests vs Monty's 30, plus he is double the batsman that Monty is, and we all know the selectors tendency to select bowlers that can bat... *cough*Giles*cough*

Monty's ODI economy is 4.49 vs Saqlain's 4.29, Mushtaq also has a better ODI average, 21 vs 40.

Monty tends to strike 1 ball quicker than Saqlain in Tests (66 vs 67), But Saqlain almost cuts Monty's ODI strike rate in half, 30 vs 50.

Thats my statistical analysis for today

 

[haroon510]

what i will enjoy is when Saqi gets selected for a Pak and England series playing for England.. and on that Series he desimate the pakistani batsman and give England the victory..

this would show the PCB thier mistake in Ignoring and wasting such a Talent Like saqi.

 

[Richard]

The difference is that Wessels hadn't played for SA prior to playing for Aus. Based on my previous argument, the question is should he have been allowed to play for SA after their readmission. He'd made his choice, benefitted at the time, and maybe should have had to live with the consequences.

Beyond that particular issue, I suppose I was OK with him playing tests for Aus on the basis that individuals should be able to aspire to test cricket and, if their own country doesn't allow them to do that, as long as there is a suitable qualifying period, then they should be able to play elsewhere. Same for D'Oliveira, really.

I guess I just can't see that it makes any more of a mockery of international cricket to have players playing for 2 countries than it does of county cricket to have them playing for 2 counties.

People should be allowed to choose where they move to, any ply their trade wherever. They should not be constrained by where they were born\raised and who they've previously reprisented.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Stick with Panesar - he'll come good in the long run.

 

[Richard]

Come good?! He's already come about as good as he ever will, IMO.

 

[Dan]

Everyone here loves statistics, why are you ignoring them?

 

[shortpitched713]

Because in this case, they're pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Burgey]

I guess I just can't see that it makes any more of a mockery of international cricket to have players playing for 2 countries than it does of county cricket to have them playing for 2 counties.

People should be allowed to choose where they move to, any ply their trade wherever. They should not be constrained by where they were born\raised and who they've previously reprisented.

What happens if a rich cricketing country or a country with a rich benefactor pays players to come and take out citizenship in a certain country, thereby making that country more powerful?

Is there a standard time to wait set by the ICC or does it depend on an individual country's time frame for citizenship. residency?

 

[Dan]

Fair Enough.
You have to live in the country you are taking citizenship in for 186 days a year for 4 years to be allowed to play for them.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

No reason at all why Saqqy shouldn't play. He's willing, he's still got the international hunger and as BB pointed out he's taking a County spot so you might as well take advantage. A Test attack of Hoggard-Flintoff-Jones-Panesar-Saqlain on form would bowl out all comers.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Just out of interest, can Panesar bowl a doosra?

 

[Dan]

As I said before, if he is one of the best 4 bowlers in the country, pick him.

3 quicks and 2 spinners on form is better than 3 quicks, 1 spinner and 1 quick that isnt in form

 

[Jono]

What happens if a rich cricketing country or a country with a rich benefactor pays players to come and take out citizenship in a certain country, thereby making that country more powerful?

Is there a standard time to wait set by the ICC or does it depend on an individual country's time frame for citizenship. residency?

Then where do you draw the line?

It seems the fact that he's represented another country is the issue here anyway, but in my mind, if you're a legal citizen of that country, and are paying taxes, have voting rights etc. you should be allowed to represent your country in international sport. If Saqlain was good enough to whip some butt in javelin throwing I'm sure England would allow him to play in this year's Olympics. No difference IMO, so what if he's played for Pakistan.

That being said I don't think England should choose him. But not because he's played for Pakistan.

 

[Dan]

Then why shouldn't he be picked Jono?

 

[shortpitched713]

Too old, too ****e probably. The usual suspects.

 

[Top_Cat]

Then where do you draw the line?

It seems the fact that he's represented another country is the issue here anyway, but in my mind, if you're a legal citizen of that country, and are paying taxes, have voting rights etc. you should be allowed to represent your country in international sport. If Saqlain was good enough to whip some butt in javelin throwing I'm sure England would allow him to play in this year's Olympics. No difference IMO, so what if he's played for Pakistan.

AWTA. Bit of a reality check here, people; if you're a doctor in one country who can move to another, do relevent exams and ply your trade where you directly affect/save people's lives, then where's the logical reason that says someone playing a game, even at the highest level, can't do the same?

As it stands, I agree with the sentiments expressed here, though; at this stage, England shouldn't pick him. But, there's no reason why he shouldn't be available if he wants to play.

 

[James90]

Panesar IMO. Voted for neither though because I wasn't thinking and/or I'm stupid.