Saqlain for England?

[gettingbetter]

Nah, wouldn't. Suposedly well past his best.

Saqlain atm > English spinners atm? Maybe not so Monty

One for the "makes a mockery of international sport" pile imo, whatever the qualification rules may say to the contrary. Lovely guy and, in his time, a great bowler, but I wouldn't want anyone who's played for another country to represent England.

Fair point, and I think this is the ideal I like to believe in, but I can some arguments, which once again I could agree with.

In the future will there be any English-born players playing for England?

How about you answer this question? Either way, I think seeing a mix of cultures in the English team has been quite good (I;ve given my reasons before). I really can't see how non-English born players are any different from before; Carribean born players in the 80s/90s, Australian born players in the 90s and Asians sprinkled throughout but with a higher influx of late.

 

[gettingbetter]

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.

@ Jones. Either way, Sidebottom = Jones, so it would take some work by Jones to dislodge him. And it is soon getting that way for Flintoff too.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Saqlain atm > English spinners atm? Maybe not so Monty



Fair point, and I think this is the ideal I like to believe in, but I can some arguments, which once again I could agree with.



How about you answer this question? Either way, I think seeing a mix of cultures in the English team has been quite good (I;ve given my reasons before). I really can't see how non-English born players are any different from before; Carribean born players in the 80s/90s, Australian born players in the 90s and Asians sprinkled throughout but with a higher influx of late.

Saqlain shouldn't play for England under any circumstances. People who represent England should be born here, have English parents who just happened to be temporarily overseas (Dexter, Cowdrey for example) or at a stretch come to the Country as a child and learn their cricket here. The notion that people should be able to flit about representing anyone they feel like makes a complete farce of International sport.
England is a multicultural society and more and more Monty Panesar types will emerge who can quite rightly play for England. Colour, race or religion doesn't matter, being English should matter.

 

[gettingbetter]

Saqlain shouldn't play for England under any circumstances. People who represent England should be born here, have English parents who just happened to be temporarily overseas (Dexter, Cowdrey for example) or at a stretch come to the Country as a child and learn their cricket here. The notion that people should be able to flit about representing anyone they feel like makes a complete farce of International sport.
England is a multicultural society and more and more Monty Panesar types will emerge who can quite rightly play for England. Colour, race or religion doesn't matter, being English should matter.

Well as many people in this thread have stated, why should a cricketer or any other sportmen be looked at differently than someone of another occupation? I've never been to England, but I remember an Australian comedian saying something about all the Ausssie watching something...and in England it was known as the day no one was behind the bar. People migrate all around the world and work where ever they like. Should Greig or Nicholas be commentating in Australia?

If you can make a strong argument against why he shouldn't be playing with the foundation of your argument revolving around the fact that he has already represented another country, it would be worthwhile. Also, if anyone on here is football savvy, maybe they can shed light on FIFA's policy on players changing country. I remember something vaguely about, if you've played for your country at under 19 level, you can't change country.

 

[Captain Cricket]

I wonder why Mushtaq was dropped from Pakistan...he's only in his early 30's.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well as many people in this thread have stated, why should a cricketer or any other sportmen be looked at differently than someone of another occupation? I've never been to England, but I remember an Australian comedian saying something about all the Ausssie watching something...and in England it was known as the day no one was behind the bar. People migrate all around the world and work where ever they like. Should Greig or Nicholas be commentating in Australia?

If you can make a strong argument against why he shouldn't be playing with the foundation of your argument revolving around the fact that he has already represented another country, it would be worthwhile. Also, if anyone on here is football savvy, maybe they can shed light on FIFA's policy on players changing country. I remember something vaguely about, if you've played for your country at under 19 level, you can't change country.

Cricketers shouldn't "be looked at differently than someone of another occupation?" If someone wants to come to England to play cricket then fine, the same with other occupations. They just shouldn't be able to represent the Country in International sport. Greig or Nicholas are not representing anybody when they're commentating. My opinion has nothing to do with migration. I just believe that International competition should be based on the capabilities of people from the nation being represented.

 

[Richard]

And should players born in the catchment area of a certain club only be eligable for them? Kinda makes a mockery of club cricket if not.

 

[Richard]

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.

Two fingerspinners in England - even if Saqlain was the bowler of old, which is highly unlikely - will almost never have any great effect.

Going into a Test in England with less than 4 seamers is borderline madness.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And should players born in the catchment area of a certain club only be eligable for them? Kinda makes a mockery of club cricket if not.

If you genuinely can't see the difference between International sport and a knock about on a village green then I feel sorry for you.

 

[Richard]

Who mentioned knockabouts on the village-green?

The only difference between club, state\county\provincial\etc. and international cricket is the fact that it's a geographical step up.

There's a whole massive stigma attached to countries (which is not attached to the next levels down) by some people, and wrongly so. I'm well aware of it, I just don't accept there's such a massive difference as some do.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Who mentioned knockabouts on the village-green?

The only difference between club, state\county\provincial\etc. and international cricket is the fact that it's a geographical step up.

There's a whole massive stigma attached to countries (which is not attached to the next levels down) by some people, and wrongly so. I'm well aware of it, I just don't accept there's such a massive difference as some do.

It's not about a stigma, it's not even about cricket. It's about having pride in your own nation.

 

[Richard]

What about having pride in your own county? Some people still say that it makes a mockery of county cricket having non-county-born players in your side.

TBH, if you're going to make a fuss about your nation, you should be making a fuss about your domestic team (whether that be county, state or whatever) too. I'm happy enough that anyone should be allowed to choose - to change, if neccessary - their own nation, or their own home at any level of geography. No-one should be constrained by where they were born.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What about having pride in your own county? Some people still say that it makes a mockery of county cricket having non-county-born players in your side.

TBH, if you're going to make a fuss about your nation, you should be making a fuss about your domestic team (whether that be county, state or whatever) too. I'm happy enough that anyone should be allowed to choose - to change, if neccessary - their own nation, or their own home at any level of geography. No-one should be constrained by where they were born.

I'll assume you're just putting forward a stupid argument just to be contrary.

 

[Richard]

Nope, a wrong assumption not for the first time.

You don't understand my way of thinking on country, because you have a different one.

 

[Evermind]

Nope, a wrong assumption not for the first time.

You don't understand my way of thinking on country, because you have a different one.

He is also English.

 

[slowfinger]

Thats is very funny not.No one gets along with Richard and no one will...

 

[Prince EWS]

What about having pride in your own county? Some people still say that it makes a mockery of county cricket having non-county-born players in your side.

TBH, if you're going to make a fuss about your nation, you should be making a fuss about your domestic team (whether that be county, state or whatever) too. I'm happy enough that anyone should be allowed to choose - to change, if neccessary - their own nation, or their own home at any level of geography. No-one should be constrained by where they were born.

Y'know, if you got me in a corner, I'd confess that I'm actually not all-too-happy about Western Australians playing for New South Wales, either. The way the Australian domestic system is geared towards the national side makes it a fool's dream to think that sort of stuff would ever go away, obviously, but the fact that players do it at county/state level doesn't make the fact that they do it at international any more better in my eyes, as I don't agree with the former anyway.

I'd hazzard a guess to say that Nathan Hauritz, for example, doesn't really feel any connection to New South Wales at all, and is merely playing for them to advance his career. His friends and family actually give him stick about it, so I wouldn't think it'd be something he'd be particularly proud of doing. I bet he moves back to Queensland and follows the Bulls after he retireds as well. I don't blame the player himself for doing this; and he has to earn a living and he naturally has personal ambition as well. I don't like the the fact that he can do this, though, really.

I regard playing cricket for your state, your county or your country as representative cricket, which should be about more than advancing your career and making some money, IMO. This extends past cricket as well and to all sports, really. Franchise/club systems are a totally different matter to representative honours from where I sit.

 

[BoyBrumby]

How about you answer this question? Either way, I think seeing a mix of cultures in the English team has been quite good (I;ve given my reasons before). I really can't see how non-English born players are any different from before; Carribean born players in the 80s/90s, Australian born players in the 90s and Asians sprinkled throughout but with a higher influx of late.

Actually I dare say you'd have to go back quite a few years for the last entirely English-born test XI we stuck out. Possibly when Hussain was injured & Stewart was still keeping would be my guess, but CBA to check.

I wonder why Mushtaq was dropped from Pakistan...he's only in his early 30's.

Very serious knee injuries severely hampered him for a good 18 months & he's never quite fully established himself anywhere since to put together a run of form to warrant a recall. Their ignoring of Mushtaq Ahmed more baffling from a cricketing point of view; he's been taking literally hundreds of wickets for Sussex for a good few years now.

 

[Richard]

Y'know, if you got me in a corner, I'd confess that I'm actually not all-too-happy about Western Australians playing for New South Wales, either. The way the Australian domestic system is geared towards the national side makes it a fool's dream to think that sort of stuff would ever go away, obviously, but the fact that players do it at county/state level doesn't make the fact that they do it at international any more better in my eyes, as I don't agree with the former anyway.

I'd hazzard a guess to say that Nathan Hauritz, for example, doesn't really feel any connection to New South Wales at all, and is merely playing for them to advance his career. His friends and family actually give him stick about it, so I wouldn't think it'd be something he'd be particularly proud of doing. I bet he moves back to Queensland and follows the Bulls after he retireds as well. I don't blame the player himself for doing this; and he has to earn a living and he naturally has personal ambition as well. I don't like the the fact that he can do this, though, really.

I regard playing cricket for your state, your county or your country as representative cricket, which should be about more than advancing your career and making some money, IMO. This extends past cricket as well and to all sports, really. Franchise/club systems are a totally different matter to representative honours from where I sit.

TBH, it's not an outrageous suggestion to me, either. I've always been a naturally "happy at home" person, and have been dragged across this country so much I've come to really hate moving around. If someone brought in a ruling that players were only eligable for their "home" (under the strict interpretation Lillian Thomson mentioned) teams, be it county, state or country. The only way you were eligable for a team without being born there is if your parents just happened to be on a short-term visit elsewhere when you were born, and had a background in the geographical area you would have been born in had they not been away. I'd also go so far as to say if you moved somewhere at the age of, say, 2 and stayed there until you started playing representative cricket that you qualified.

The trouble is, a) there will always be people (like Richard Hingston, for example) who have feet in both camps, and who were brought-up in two places (in his case, two countries) and b) there will always be people who want to change their home. I don't feel people should be disallowed from choosing their home and their country\county\state just because they were born somewhere else.

What I feel is completely ludicrous is the "your country is important, while your state\county is not in the slightest". It's both, or it's neither IMO.

Where do you draw the line of "representative", incidentally? Some people feel more of an attachment to a club - have been with it for life, have been part of the lifeblood of the club, indeed - than they do a county or country. There are some people for whom to play for any club other than their own would feel a violation.

I'd be amazed if anyone felt any great attachment to a South African franchise, meanwhile - there are almost certainly less people who do that than those who feel an attachment to a club over here.

 

[Richard]

Their ignoring of Mushtaq Ahmed more baffling from a cricketing point of view; he's been taking literally hundreds of wickets for Sussex for a good few years now.

But every time he's been called back to Test cricket, he's failed dismally. Hasn't had so much as one good Test since 1997.